[ad_1]
Concurring opinions are written by judges who agree with the majority decision but have different reasoning. They cannot create legal precedents and are less important than majority opinions. Judges can write concurring opinions to challenge or add to the majority opinion, and they can be useful for attorneys and the public. They must be clearly noted as concurring opinions when cited.
A concurrent opinion is a legal opinion written by a judge who agrees with the opinion reached by the majority in a case, but has different reasoning or would like to add something to the majority’s decision. Concurring opinions can be seen in legal cases where matters are tried before a panel of judges. These opinions cannot be used to create legal precedents and are therefore of less interest in case law than majority opinions written to express the majority opinion of the court.
It is possible for several judges in a court to agree on a sentence for different reasons. Sometimes they reach an opinion of plurality, agreeing as a group on the outcome of a case, but on completely different grounds. In these cases, all judges can write their own concurring opinions articulating the logic behind their opinions.
Most commonly, a judge writes a concurring opinion to add to the majority opinion or to point out sections of the majority opinion that the judge disagrees with and explains why. When a judge writes a majority opinion to represent the court, that judge may number the opinion so that it can be easily referenced. This allows a concurrent judge to challenge particular sections in a concurrent opinion, or to refer to sections expanded and explored in the concurrent opinion.
Judges are not required to write concurring opinions, but they can be invaluable and enlightening. Highlighting the parts of an opinion that may be disputed can provide an opportunity for judges to discuss the law in more depth. Such insights can also be invaluable to the attorneys involved in the case, as they can learn more about the thought process involved in the court decision. This information can be useful if you are appealing or arguing a similar case before the same court.
Concurring opinions are a matter of public knowledge and can be consulted by anyone interested in the outcome of a case. When cited in discussions, the fact that they are concurring opinions must be clearly noted so that readers understand the legal position of the opinion under discussion. It is common to see “concurrent opinion” in an abbreviated form such as “conc. operation.” in order to save space when people cite those views in legal briefs and other legal documents.
[ad_2]