ABSTRACT
Generally, majority opinions are drafted by and attributed to an individual judge. When audiences evaluate such cases, the opinion is critiqued not only as the “voice of the court,” but also based on personal considerations of the opinion writer. Per curiam decisions are different, as such practice removes the author from consideration by leaving the opinion unsigned. Common knowledge contends that per curiam opinions are used when either the case involved is simply decided based on the facts provided, or when the opinion would benefit from multiple viewpoints and the expertise of the panel. Because per curiam opinions are unsigned, however, they may also be used as a strategic device to avoid backlash, particularly in controversial decisions. This chapter examines two different aspects of per curiam opinion-writing and examines the common knowledge view of when per curiam opinions are utilized versus a more strategic rationalization for use. To examine this we first ask, are per curiam opinions systematically different in their use of language from regular opinions? Second, are systems that use public elections as a means of judicial retention more likely to engage in the drafting of per curiam opinions?
