Concurring opinion

In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons for the decision.^[1] It may also be used to add comments.^[1] 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. The concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is called the plurality opinion.

Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent (common law) and cannot be cited as such. But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming 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 in the majority opinion. Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would allow the development of a new legal rule. 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 is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} "Concurring Opinion Law & Legal Definition". USLegal, Inc. Retrieved 15 March 2016.