Minor opinion

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of minority opinion (including minority or - depending on the academic discipline - analog outsider opinion or position ) designated in a discourse or a specific issue represented opinions that do not meet the predominantly occupied position.


The concept of minor opinion becomes significant in jurisprudence when logically several feasible approaches to a solution emerge for a specific question. It denotes views that are only held sporadically or by a smaller number of lawyers dealing with this problem (→  legal terminology ). In this respect, it is the opposite of the prevailing opinion , but is often only used when a view is actually not very important. A view that does not correspond to the prevailing opinion is therefore not necessarily an inferior opinion.

The term is imprecise to the extent that jurisprudence usually differentiates between the legal conceptions of jurisprudence and literary opinions . Under no circumstances can the view of the competent supreme federal court (such as the Federal Court of Justice ) be an inferior opinion, even if this view meets unanimous opposition outside of the jurisdiction.

The term inferior opinion is criticized especially by representatives of such, as it implies that it is less valuable. Instead, you advocate the term minority opinion .

The minor opinion is usually abbreviated to MM or MM .

"Different view"

There is also the other view or view ( AA for short or a. A. ), which states that there are different views on a legal problem. Such a different view is to be judged precisely in who takes this particular view and whether it can be of any practical significance in view of this. For example, the opinion of a law professor is to be evaluated differently than the (predominant) case law of the highest instances of a branch of the court .

See also


  • Robert Alexy : Theory of Legal Argumentation. The theory of rational discourse as a theory of legal justification. 3rd edition, Frankfurt am Main 1996, p. 321 ff.
  • Uwe Diederichsen : On the way to legal dogmatics . In: Reinhard Zimmermann u. a. (Ed.): Legal history and private law dogmatics. CF Müller, Heidelberg 1999, p. 65 ff.