| Legal and judicial opinions |
|---|
In law, aconcurring opinion is in certain legal systems a writtenopinion by one or morejudges of acourt which agrees with the decision made by themajority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for their decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as theplurality opinion.
As a practical matter, concurring opinions are slightly less useful to lawyers than majority opinions. Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are notbinding precedent and cannot be cited as such. But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form ofpersuasive precedent (assuming the point of law is one on which there is no binding precedent already in effect). The conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law articulated in the majority opinion. Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal an openness to certain types oftest cases that would facilitate the development of a new legal rule, and in turn, such a concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case. A well-known example of this phenomenon isEscola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).[1][2]
Concurring opinions may be held by courts but not expressed: in many legal systems the court "speaks with one voice" and thus any concurring or dissenting opinions are not reported. Some view concurring opinions as "unnecessary confusion" that "encourage litigation" and create "legal clutter."[3]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(June 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
There are several kinds of concurring opinion. A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majoritydecision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).
In some courts, such as theSupreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered parts, and then concurring justices may state that they join some parts of the majority opinion, but not others, for the reasons given in their concurring opinion.[4] In other courts, such as theSupreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinionand a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment (which are joined only by a minority).[5]
In some jurisdictions (e.g.,California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts toconc. opn.
