WordNet
- an opinion that agrees with the courts disposition of the case but is written to express a particular judges reasoning
- the reason for a courts judgment (as opposed to the decision itself) (同)ruling
- the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge" (同)legal opinion, judgment, judgement
- a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?" (同)sentiment, persuasion, view, thought
- a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page" (同)view
PrepTutorEJDIC
- 〈C〉『意見』,見解《複数形で》所信 / 〈C〉《good,bad;high,lowなどの修飾語を伴って》(人・物事に対する)『評仮』《+『of』+『名』》 / 〈U〉『世論』;(あるグループ全体の)意見
Wikipedia preview
出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』「2017/08/31 04:41:13」(JST)
[Wiki en表示]
Legal and judicial opinions
|
Majority opinion
Dissenting opinion
Plurality opinion
Concurring opinion
Memorandum opinion
Per curiam opinion
Seriatim opinion
|
In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems 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 as the basis for his or her 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 the plurality 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 Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent and cannot be cited as such. But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive 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 that he or she is open to certain types of test 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 is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).
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.
Contents
- 1 Types of concurring opinions
- 2 Concurring opinions by region
- 3 Terminology at the various courts
- 4 Notable concurring opinions
- 5 References
- 6 External links
Types of concurring opinions
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 majority decision (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).
Concurring opinions by region
In some courts, such as the Supreme 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.[1] In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion and a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment (which are joined only by a minority).[2]
In some jurisdictions (e.g., California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts to conc. opn.
Terminology at the various courts
- At the International Court of Justice, the term "separate opinion" is used and 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 the term concurring opinion and calls both concurring and dissenting opinions separate opinions. Judges very rarely add declarations to the judgment.[3]
- Historically the Law Lords of the United Kingdom gave each an opinion of their own and no aggregated judgment was provided. However, the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom allows for such aggregated judgements, and it is theoretically possible for such concurring opinions to now arise.
Notable concurring opinions
- Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis+1, free speech, became precedent 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
- Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944), Justice Roger Traynor, strict liability for manufacturers, became precedent 19 years later in Greenman v. Yuba Power.
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), Justice Robert H. Jackson, definitive test for the limits of Presidential power.
References
- ^ See, e.g., McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
- ^ See, e.g., Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal. 4th 1063 (1997). Justice Ming Chin's concurrence began with these words: "Obviously, I concur in the majority opinion I have authored. I write separately to state another reason to reject plaintiff's argument."
- ^ According to Professor Frédéric Rolin, ECHR judges added declarations in only two cases: Papon v. France (25 July 2002) and Martinie v. France (12 April 2006) ("Note sous CEDH 12 avril 2006, Martinie c/ France", 18 April 2006)
External links
UpToDate Contents
全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.
English Journal
- How the FDA can overturn Wyeth v. Levine.
- Gostanian A1.
- American journal of law & medicine.Am J Law Med.2010;36(1):248-68.
- In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court held that an FDA-approved drug label did not preempt state tort law. Although the Supreme Court did not defer to the FDA's position, language in the opinion, and Breyer's concurring opinion, suggest that the FDA may be able to abrogate Wyeth v. Levine using the
- PMID 20481407
- [Metabolic syndrome: a true syndrome or only a cluster of risk factors?].
- Schweiger C1, Cirrincione V, Ignone G.
- Giornale italiano di cardiologia (2006).G Ital Cardiol (Rome).2008 Apr;9(4 Suppl 1):67S-73S.
- Although the classical cardiovascular risk factors (such as smoking, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia) are becoming gradually more effectively controlled, a continuous increase of the so-called "cardiometabolic risk" linked to obesity and impaired glycemic control is observed. Starting from the
- PMID 18773753
- Learning to improve safety: false-positive pathology report results in wrongful surgery.
- Piotrowski MM1, Bessette RL, Chensue S, Cutler D, Kachalia A, Roseborough JW, Saint S, Underwood W 3rd, Murphy HS.
- Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources.Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf.2005 Mar;31(3):123-31.
- BACKGROUND: A patient experienced a wrongful surgical resection, specifically, a radical retropubic prostatectomy because of a false-positive pathology report.FINDINGS FROM THE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA): The RCA team identified three antecedent events that contributed to this medical error: (1) a se
- PMID 15828595
Japanese Journal
- 裁判員は何を参照し、何によって満足するのか : 専門家-非専門家による評議コミュニケーション
- 表現行為としての座り込み : Garner v. Louisianaにおけるハーラン結果同意意見の位置 (第二部比較憲法研究の新展開) (浦部法穂教授退職記念論文集)
Related Links
- Judge Posner, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that this was appropriate, while Judge Hamilton dissented and said that this research was not appropriate. (Disclosure–I have met Judge Hamilton at some functions, but not ...
- Thesaurus Antonyms Related Words Synonyms Legend: Noun 1. concurring opinion - an opinion that agrees with the court's disposition of the case but is written to express a particular judge's reasoning judgement, legal opinion, opinion ...
★リンクテーブル★
[★]
- 関
- comment、finding、idea、impression、intent、intention、judgement、judgment、manifestation、notion、observation、remark、thinking、thought、view