ABSTRACT
This chapter tells the story of dissenting opinions in its natural habitat: the common law tradition. Getting to its roots leads us to better understand each legal rule and institution. The institution of dissenting opinions is an especially suitable object of study for a comparatist, as it spread gradually in the Western legal tradition. The opinion of the single judge, delivered orally at the end of the trial, could be either a full judgment or a simple formal concurrence. The chapter introduces the first 'Great Dissenters' of the US Supreme Court's history: Justice Johnson, Justice Daniel, Justice Curtis, Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis, who paved the way for their successors, such as Justice Scalia and others. The doctrine of binding precedent, or principle of stare decisis, which is one of the pillars of the common law tradition, is not formally advocated in continental Europe, but civil law courts also consider their own precedents as imperative.
