Concurring opinion facts for kids
| Judicial opinions & aggregates for official decisions (O.S-Federal) |
|---|
|
Majority opinion |
A concurring opinion is a special written statement from a judge in a court case. It means the judge agrees with the final decision the court made. But they might have different reasons for agreeing. Or, they might want to add extra comments about the case.
Sometimes, many judges agree on the final decision, but they don't all agree on why they made that decision. In these cases, the court's decision might be explained through several concurring opinions. The concurring opinion that most judges agree with is sometimes called the plurality opinion.
Concurring opinions are not like official rules for future cases. This means lawyers cannot use them as binding precedent. However, they can sometimes be used as helpful ideas if there are no official rules already in place. A concurring opinion can help lawyers understand different viewpoints in a case.
Sometimes, a judge might write a concurring opinion to suggest that they are open to new types of cases. These "test cases" could help create new legal rules. This can sometimes make a concurring opinion more famous than the main decision in the same case. A well-known example of this is the case of Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. from 1944.
How Different Courts Use Concurring Opinions
In some courts, like the Supreme Court of the United States, the main decision can be broken down into different parts. Judges who write concurring opinions might say they agree with some parts of the main decision but not others. They explain their reasons in their own concurring opinion.
In other courts, like the Supreme Court of California, the same judge might write the main decision and a separate concurring opinion. This allows them to add more reasons to support the court's judgment.
Different Names for Concurring Opinions
Different courts around the world use different names for these types of opinions:
- At the International Court of Justice, they use the term "separate opinion." Judges can also add "declarations" to the judgment.
- The term "concurring opinion" is used at the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The European Court of Human Rights uses "concurring opinion." They also call both concurring and dissenting opinions "separate opinions." Judges rarely add declarations to the judgment.
- In the United Kingdom, the Law Lords each give their own opinion. There isn't one single combined judgment.
- In some places, like California, the term might be shortened to conc. opn. in certain documents.
