DISSENTING OPINIONS. Yale Law Journal. Volume 14 Issue 4 Yale Law Journal. Article 1

Similar documents
Aconsideration of the sources of law in a legal

THE INDEXING OF LEGISLATION

MUST THE REJECTION OF AN OFFER BE COMMUNICATED TO THE OFFEROR?

Before : THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES LORD JUSTICE GROSS and MR JUSTICE MITTING Between :

Book Review: Foundations of Legal Liability

Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison (1803) [Abridged]

Identification of customary international law Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh.

M'Naghten v. Durham. Cleveland State University. Lee E. Skeel

The Norwegian legal system, the work of the Appeals Committee and the role of precedent in Norwegian law

ABA Formal Op. 334 Page 1 ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op American Bar Association

OVERVIEW OF THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

from the present case. The grant does not convey power which might be beneficial to the grantor, if retained by himself, or which can inure solely to

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015

South Carolina s Exposition Against the Tariff of 1828 By John C. Calhoun (Anonymously)

TRIAL BY JURY AND "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" IN THE PHILIPPINES

Dr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.

THE NEW JERSEY PRACTICE ACT OF 1912

RULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY PREAMBLE *

Chapter VI Identification of customary international law

Administrative Tribunal

Book Review: Dicey s Conflict of Laws

Egypt Égypte Ägypten. Report Q194. in the name of the Egyptian Group by Samir HAMZA, Ahmed Abou ALI, Tamer EL HENNAWY and Heba EL TOUKHY

Procedure for Pretrial Conferences in the Federal Courts

The Arbitration Act, 1992

Netherlands Arbitration Institute Interim Award of 10 February 2005

Supreme Court of Indiana. KNAPP v. STATE.

RULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY

A MANUAL OF PRACTICE AND RULES OF ORDER AND DEBATE FOR DELIBERATIVE ASSEMBLIES THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

BERMUDA PARLIAMENT ACT : 19

Arbitration Act 1996

Proceduralism and Epistemic Value of Democracy

General Discussion STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. PALMER, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) NATIONAL PROHIBITION CASES

CODE OF ETHICS FOR TEACHERS AND ENGINEERS FOR TEACHERS

CLUB MEETINGS. Page 1 of 9

Council Procedure By-law

Order F10-29 (Additional to Order F09-21) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. Celia Francis, Senior Adjudicator. August 16, 2010

Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order from:

ETHICS OF PREPARING AGREEMENTS FOR JOINTLY REPRESENTED CLIENTS IN LITIGATION TO MAKE COLLECTIVE SETTLEMENT DECISIONS Adopted January 4, 2018

Arbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory

CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES Free Exercise Clause Decision The Contemplation of Justice McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat.

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COM~ERCE COURT OF ARBITRATION LEONARD 8. BANNICKE

STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

With regard to this hypothetical scenario, you have asked the following questions:

TRADE MARKS TRADE MARKS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED. and DCG PROPERTIES LIMITED. 2011: July 25, 26; September 26.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

Contemporary Issues in Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Working Group EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy February 2016

The Role of Counsel Pursuant to Section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act. Trusts and Estates Division of the Ontario Bar Association

Local Building or Fire Prevention Code Boards of Appeals Manual

Unfair Terms Assessment of Unfairness in View of Art. 83 and 86 CESL

Disclaimer: This document is for educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

l.j Before: Registry: Registrar: DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Counsel for applicant: Duke Danquah, OSLA

Consultation on the General Data Protection Regulation: CAP s evaluation of responses

Chapter 5: Drafting Legal Memoranda

The Permanent Court of International Justice

Robert's Rules of Order by Henry M. Robert

James Madison's Defense of the Constitution at the Virginia Convention (1788)

[This is a scanned document. We apologize for any errors created during the scanning process- CICC]

BEFORE THE APPEALS COUNCIL OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

CHANCERY BAR ASSOCIATION ISLE OF MAN CONFERENCE 8 NOVEMBER 2018 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH COURT OF PROTECTION AND THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

How To Conduct A Meeting:

Chapter -6 Interpretation of statutes, deeds and documents

Hot Cargo Clause and Its Effect Under the Labor- Management Relations Act of 1947

Common law reasoning and institutions

STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine

RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

RULES of the HONORABLE SOCIETY of the INN of COURT of NORTHERN IRELAND

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CODE OF ETHICS FOR MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

Board of Trustees Bylaws

Accident Claim Settlement - A Proposal to Eliminate Unnecesasry Delay

Unit V Constitutional Law I LLB 3rd, BALLB 5th. Doctrine of Precedent (Article.141) Introduction. Historical background

PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

INQUIRY GOOD PRACTICE

EUROPEAN COMMISSION CONSULTATION ON THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE RESPONSE OF THE QUALIFICATION COMMITTEE OF THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD

Fixed Advocate s Costs in Pre-Action Disclosure Applications: Are They Always Recoverable? THOMAS HERBERT

Forum Juridicum: The Unauthorized Practice of the Law

Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

(2) Portland and Brunswick Squares Association

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SETTE-CAMARA

Politics between Philosophy and Democracy

ILO Constitution. Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;

Judicial Veto and the Ohio Plan

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

PRESIDING JUDGE KUENYEHIA: Now that we are finished with the. The situation in Libya in the case of the Prosecutor against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and

BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No: [2012] NZIACDT 10. Reference No: IACDT 027/10

Research on Extensive Interpretation and Analogical Interpretation of Criminal Law. Wenchao Li

Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors: Replication

THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY RELATING TO MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS

Kennedy v. St. Joseph s Ministries, Inc.: The Fourth Circuit's Troubling Interpretation of Interlocutory Appellate Procedure in Federal Courts

the availability of other schemes, or the granting of other licences, to other persons in similar circumstances, and

GSA Federal Advisory Committee Act Fundamentals

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4240th meeting, on 30 November 2000

XYZ Co. shall pay $200 per hour to each of Lawyer A and Lawyer B for additional time (including travel) spent beyond the initial eight hours.

State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

CHAPTER 21. BRIEFS AND REPRODUCED RECORD IN GENERAL CONTENT OF BRIEFS

John Rawls THEORY OF JUSTICE

COMMISSION v GERMANY. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 January 2006*

INTRODUCTION TO READING & BRIEFING CASES AND OUTLINING

Transcription:

Yale Law Journal Volume 14 Issue 4 Yale Law Journal Article 1 1905 DISSENTING OPINIONS Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj Recommended Citation DISSENTING OPINIONS, 14 Yale L.J. (1905). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol14/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Yale Law Journal by an authorized editor of Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact julian.aiken@yale.edu.

YALE LAW JOURNAL VOL. XIV. FEBRUARY, 1905 No. 4 DISSENTING OPINIONS. Not only laymen, but members of the legal profession as well, have from time to time in a more or less public way, questioned the value, and even the propriety, of announcing and reporting dissenting opinions; and the matter seems to be of sufficient importance to justify consideration. It is urged that the practice still recognized in many of the appellate courts in this country, in acordance with which the judges of such courts (the number of judges necessary to consider and decide a case being seldom, if ever, less than three) who do not agree in the views of the majority exercise the right of expressing their disagreement, either generally or by dissenting opinions explaining the reasons for their disagreement, tends to bring discredit on the courts by advertising the fact that the. conclusions reached in some cases are not the unanimous opinions of the court, and that the losing party would have been successful if the views expressed by the dissenting judges had prevailed. It seems to be thought that in this way the public is unnecessarily made aware of the fact, which is no secret to members of the legal profession, that judges are not infallible, and that the law is not an exact science. No doubt it would be highly desirable in the interest of public tranquility that unsuccessful litigants should be made to believe that from the beginning their cases were hopeless, and that by a process of infallible reasoning they have been found in the wrong, but it may be proper to suggest at the outset that it will require more than the uniform announcement of opinions without indica. tion of dissent or doubt on- the part of any member of the

YALE LAW JOURNAL. tribunal charged with the administration of justice, to satisfy a majority even, of unsuccessful litigants, that they and the counsel whom they have employed were entirely wrong in their views of the law as applied to the decision of their individual cases; and this distrust of the infallibility of the court and the certainty of the law will necessarily be fcmented by unsuccessful counsel who will hardly be brought to admit that any tribunal, however high, has with unerring accuracy, and as a matter of necessity, reached a conclusion which totally discredits advice which they have given to their clients. The plainest, and perhaps most persuasive, objection to the total unanimity plan of announcing the result of the deliberations of a court composed of several judges, would seem to be that the appearance must be in many cases not in accordance with the facts. To assume unanimity would be to introduce an unnecessary fiction in judicial proceedings, in violation of the present general tendency toward eliminating fictions and emphasizing facts. One of the most significant features of our entire judicial system is the publicity with which every stage in the proceeding before a court of any character whatever is attended. To suppress all recognition of the fact of difference of opinion among judges would probably lead to the disquieting belief that the real uncertainties of litigation are much more numerous and dangerous than the actual facts would justify. The arguments against the announcement of dissents are usually put on the ground that the decision of the court, whether unanimous or not, is a finality, and that it can be of no real value to any one to be advised that the conclusion reached is not approved of by one or more of the judges. It is, of course, true, that for the purposes of the case, the final judgment announced by the majority of a divided court is as conclusive and effectual as though the judges had been unanimous; but those who urge this view must lose sight of the purpose for which opinions are written in appellate courts. If such a court performs no useful function other than that of rendering a decision, binding on the litigants, in each case brought before it, written opinions would be futile. A short entry by the clerk under the direction of the court as to the affirmance, modification or. reversal of the judgment of the lower court, would suffice for all purposes. But the practice in appellate courts of explaining with more or less fullness and detail the rules or principles which have been applied in reaching the conclusion announced, is too general to be branded as useless, unless after

DISSENTING OPINIONS. very full and deliberate consideration it is found to be without value or open to such serious objection that, all things considered, it is unwise. It may well be suggested at once that the object of written opinions is not to satisfy unsuccessful litigants that the conclusion of the court is right. To accomplish any such purpose it would be necessary to enter into an elaboration of details which even the most prolix judge almost uniformly avoids, for he realizes how hopeless would be such a task. He well knows that at best he can but make such announcements as will enable intelligent counsel who have the judicial faculty sufficiently developed to be capable of understanding the court's point of view, to see wherein the premises upon which he has relied have differed from-those whch the court has approved. Many judicial opinions could no doubt have been bettered if the judges formulating them had dismissed from mind entirely any purpose of satisfying unsuccessful litigants and their counsel that in the consultations of the court every argument had been weighed, and so far as unsatisfactory, had been answered, and confined themselves to the legitimate function of explaining those rules of law, with their limitations, which the court has applied in deciding the controversy. The desire to argue, however, is so universal that judges can hardly be blamed for sometimes yielding to the temptation of uselessly elaborating details. It is no doubt a legitimate ambition on the part of the judge seeking to explain the rules of law which have been applied in the decision of a case, to make it clear to all interested parties that the case has been fully and fairly considered. But after all the ambition is one so seldom realized that it may well be discarded as unattainable. The proper function of a written opinion can be fully understood only in the light of the origin and persistence in the common law system of the doctrine of precedent; and in this connection it will be useful to recall the marked and fundamental difference in this respect between the common law system and the system of the civil law, for over against the practice in common law courts of announcing the reasoning which has been followed in applying the rules of law, whether they be unwritten or statutory, to the facts of the particular case, stands a general usage of the courts in cases where the civil law system is recognized of announcing only the conclusion reached, the assumption being that the decision can be of no significance save to the parties interested in the case decided.

YALE LA W JOURNAL. Indeed, the civil law codes usually prohibit judges in deciding a case from taking into account the decisions of the judges in other cases, and confine them directly to the application in cases before them of the law as expressed in the code itself. It is not necessary here to enlarge on the advantages or disadvantages of the two rival systems of law in this respect. It is enough to say that the recognition in the common law system of the force and effect of precedents renders it necessary that a court whose decisions are to be given weight as precedents shall announce, not for the satisfaction of the parties concerned in the case, but for the guidance of those whose business it is to know and apply the law, and with as great definiteness as practicable, the exact rule of law which is applied in the case, in order that its scope and limitations, as applicable to other sets of facts in some respects analogous, may be understood. It is not easy to state in any very satisfactory form the rule as to the force and effect to be given to precedent in the common law system, nor is it necessary for present purposes to attempt to do so. It will be more profitable to recall briefly the pertinent facts as to the introduction and development of the usage of common law courts in regard to the announcement of the views of the judges on questions of law, as distinguished from the announcement of the practical conclusion which determines the rights of the parties. No system of judicial procedure has been very far developed among any people having the art of making written records of facts which it is thought desirable to preserve, without the adoption of the practice of reducing to authoritative and written form the decisions in cases submitted to judicial tribunals for adjudication. The practice of the judges administering the law in England has been peculiar, however, in this: that from early times it has been usual, or at least not uncommon, to express in some brief way, in connection with the decision itself, some explanation of the reasons which were considered by the judges, as requiring that the judgment be given as announced; and it is significant that an early method of explaining the reason which was thought to be controlling was by way of some note in the recorded decision calling particular attention to it. When an early common law judge, or the person who recorded his decision, advised those who might read the record that they should note some particular fact or the rule as significant in connection with the record of the decision, it evidently

DISSENTING OPINIONS. was not for the benefit of the parties to the litigation or their counsel concerned in that case, but for information to those not directly interested in the case, who might desire to draw information therefrom for use in other cases; that is, the explanation was intended not with reference to the decision itself, but with reference to the rules of law which were being applied. It is an interesting fact that while there are practically continuous records of the proceedings and judgments in the cases decided in the king's courts from the time of Richard I, back of which, according to common law fiction, legal memory does not extend, there has been also from that time a practically continuous usage of preserving in some permanent form the opinions of the judges in the cases decided, as distinguished from the mere technical record of the proceedings, and that in reducing these opinions to permanent form it was not deemed at all material that the names of the parties to the litigation, whose rights were being determined, should be preserved. In the earliest of the year books, as recently published from manuscripts preserved containing such opinions, that is, the year book for 2o and 21, Edward I. (1327), as in many of the year books and other reports of early cases, the parties are designated by letters, as A or B, or by some evidently fictitious name, as Adam or Richard or Alice or Joan, not apparently with any thought of concealing the names of the real parties to the case, but because the names of the parties were wholly immaterial in the announcement of the rule of law. Briefly, then, it may be said that practically from the beginning of the series of preserved records of judicial proceedings in the king's courts, there has been preserved also a series of the opinions of the judges rendering those decisions, announced not for the benefit of the parties to the litigation but for the benefit of those desirous of ascertaining the rules of law applicable to similar cases. It is to be noticed also that in the English common law courts, composed of two or more judges sitting together to consider a case or a question in a case submitted to them, it was customary, and indeed the custom still continues, for each of the judges to announce for himself his conclusions and thus assist in determining what the result should be, evidently not in the same way that a popular assembly determines by viva voce vote the will of the majority, but for the purpose of making plain the view of the court as a deliberative body, and the legal conclusion reached by it, to serve as a precedent in other cases.

YALE LA J JOURNAL. The individual judge did not yield assent simply to the will of a majority, bdt the concurrence in any rule announced, of a majority of those authorized to decide the case, not only determined the decision for the particular case, but indicated the rule which had the acquiescence of judgment of the greater number of judges. Nevertheless, the precedent is binding in another case only so far as the reason of it commends itself to those who are charged with the decision of the other case. There is, of course, another element entering into the rule of precedent-that is, the desirability of attaining certainty and stability in the law; and in a subsequent case the decision in a previous analogous case appeals not only by virtue of its own inherent force, but also by virtue of its having been found' convincing by others qualified to pass upon its sufficiency, and further by reason of the desirability of adhering, if the judgment will permit, to that which has been established, rather than introducing uncertainty into the law. Perhaps here we have in a nutshell the whole origin and necessity of the usage of announcing dissenting opinions. The practice now very general in the appellate courts of this country of having the views of the court drawn up by one judge who speaks ostensibly for all who do not dissent or are not indicated as not taking any part in the decision, puts the judges who cannot acquiesce in the views of law stated in the majority opinion into a position where, in order to have their views expressed, it is necessary that a dissenting opinion be filed. The necessity for dissenting opinions did not arise in the English courts under the practice by which each judge announced his own conclusions, for it would only appear by comparison of the opinions of the judges what were the views on any particular question entertained by the majority and what were the views on that question of those differing from the majority. It is evident, therefore, that the American practice of announcing dissenting opinions is merely a survival of the English practice by which each judge expressed his views of the questions involved in the case. The arguments in favor of an announcement of the opinion of the court, as distinct from its decision in a particular case, are therefore arguments in favor of dissenting opinions when the judges differ. The claim that dissenting opinions are valueless because the views of the majority must prevail and constitute the precedent afforded by the case considered and decided, is evidently made without an accurate conception of the

DISSENTING OPINIONS. z97 effect which is given to a precedent. It is not an abstract rule or proposition of law announced by the court that constitutes the precedent which the case decided affords, but it is the reasoning of the court in applying the rules of law to the facts of the case, involving the exclusion of some facts as immaterial, and the designating of other facts as controlling; in other words, the determination of the scope and effect of the assumed rule of law with reference to a selected state of facts. Judgemade law, so called, does not simply differ from statutory law because originating from a different source, but is essentially different in its characteristics, and the force and effect of its rules are not to be gathered merely from the language in which they are couched, but rather from the reasons on which they are based and the application made of them in solving the difficulties which have arisen. It is seldom indeed that a subsequent case is brought before a court exactly parallel in every way, and as to all of its facts, with a case previously decided. If it were necessary for the second case to be exactly like the first in order that the first might be made use of as precedent for the decision of the second, there would be very little occasion for considering the weight to be given to precedent. But the court, in considering a subsequent case, which is in some respects analogous to the one previously decided, will seek to ascertain whether it is similar as to those facts which were deemed controlling in determining the reasoning of the court in the first case, and for that purpose it may be necessary to ascertain the material facts of the second, and the correspondence or divergence of the facts deemed essential in the two cases will enable the court to reach a conclusion as to whether the same course of reasoning is applicable in the second case as in the first. Now, a dissenting judge may differ from those who concur in the conclusion of the majority of the court in several distinct ways. He may differ from them as to what the controlling facts of the case relied upon as a precedent are; or he may differ from them as to the facts in the case which is being tried; or he may differ from them as to whether the analogies or discrepancies between the facts of the two cases are such as to affect the application of reasoning adopted in the first case; and finally, of course, he may differ from them as to the reasoning which was followed in the first case; and if he does so, he must also consider whether in view of the announcement of the rule in the first case it is wise and expedient in the second to depart from it,

YALE LAW JOURNAL, even though it should be thought that the first was erroneously decided. The real problem in the application of a precedent is to determine what effect will be given to it in the decision of other cases to some extent analogous, but not identical, and for this purpose a dissenting opinion is often of as much value as the majority opinion, for it helps by contrast to make distinct the limitations which are likely to be recognized tb the general statement of a rule of law by the majority. The writing of dissenting opinions has in many cases, no doubt, been unwise and injudicious. There is, perhaps, even greater danger of over-elaborating a dissent than an opinion which expresses the views of the court. It ought to be enough in most, if not all, cases where dissenting opinions are announced to indicate briefly the exact point on which the dissenter differs from his brethren. If an elaborate exposition is necessary to make clear the difference of view, the probabilities are that the difference is too refined to 4~e of real significance, and should have been allowed to remain in the consultation chamber where it originated. If the differences are so many that a long dissent is necessary for their statement, then it may be queried whether the dissenter has fully appreciated the bearing of the majority opinion, for judges who are resorting to legal methods of reasoning for the purpose of applying rules of law to a collection of facts presented to them in a definite record, can hardly fail to reach substantial agreement on most of the questions submitted to them in a case. The foregoing discusssion of the origin and utility of dissenting opinions would indicate the following practical conclusions: First, where the difference of view in the court is as to questions of fact, there should, in general, be no dissent whatever. The conclusion reached by the majority as to what facts are established ought to be announced without qualification as to the conclusion of the court, for such conclusion can be of no interest save to the parties concerned. Second, the mere announcement of a dissent without any reason assigned for it, or any opinion pointing out the particular question as to which the dissenter has disagreed from the majority, is of no advantage to anyone unless the views presented in the majority opinion relate to a concrete question, so that the announcement of a dissent sufficiently indicates the views of the dissenters.

DISSENTING OPINIONS. Third, the writer of the dissenting opinion should confine himself to a brief statement of the particular questions as to which the opinion of the majority is unsatisfactory. It is doubtful if in any case an elaboration of argument, illustration and authority will strengthen the opposition to the prevailing opinion. The writer of the dissent has a decided advantage in that his work is in the main critical and destructive rather than constructive. The advantage which the dissenter has in stating his views against the majority explains perhaps the conspicuous fact that as a rule the dissenting opinion seems more reasonable and cogent than the majority opinion in cases where a dissent is written. The critic may select his point of attack and need not make a consistent exposition of either the law or the facts of the case. Dissenting opinions should, therefore, be read with caution lest a merely plausible argument, based on partial views of the law or facts, shall be allowed to lead the mind away from a fair consideration, in all its bearings, of the case which was before the court for its decision. Notwithstanding the desirability of certainty and stability in the law and the caution which must necessarily be exercised in following the attack upon the position of the majority which a partial and sometimes unfair statement of such position leaves open to the dissenter, the conclusion would seem inevitable that in some cases dissenting opinions are not only proper, but necessary, and that to suppress the views of those judges who are unable to agree with the majority of their brethren, would not favor, but would rather obstruct, the harmonious and safe development of the law. Emlin McClain.