What is a justice writes this when he or she agrees with the majority opinion but for a different reason?

What is the difference majority opinion, a dissenting opinion and conccrring opinion?

A concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the outcome reached by the majority, but who came to that conclusion in a different way and wants to write about why. A dissenting opinion is written by a justice who disagreed with the majority and wants his disagreement known and explained

When a justice agrees with majoritys opinion but for different reasons this is called?

When a justice agrees with the majority's opinion but for different reasons, it is called a concurring opinion. This allows the justice to express their own reasoning and perspective on the case while still aligning with the overall decision of the majority. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights or highlight specific legal principles that the justice believes are important.

What are four kinds of Supreme Court opinions?

The Four types of Supreme Court Opinions Includes: Unanimous Opinion: When the Supreme Court Justice Unanimously agrees with the decision. Majority Opinion: When the Majority agrees with the decision Concurrent Opinion: When a person agrees with the Majority of the decision, but for different reasons. Dissenting Opinion: When A person disagree with the Majority of the decision.

Why would a Supreme Court justice write a concurring opinion?

A Supreme Court justice may choose to write a concurring opinion when he or she agrees with the majority decision, but wants to add perceptions or legal reasoning not addressed, or not addressed to that justice's satisfaction, in the majority opinion (opinion of the Court).

When a justice agrees with the majority decision but for differing reasons he or she might write a?

concurring opinion. In a concurring opinion, a justice expresses agreement with the outcome reached by the majority but provides their own reasoning or interpretation of the law. This allows the justice to emphasize specific points or provide alternative legal analysis.

What is an opinion written by a US Supreme Court justice who agrees with the minority opinion?

The term "minority opinion" is a bit unorthodox, considering those who vote against the majority may not be unified in their reasoning. When a Supreme Court justice wants to express disagreement with the opinion of the Court (usually the majority), he or she may write a dissenting opinion. It is not necessary for the dissenting justice to agree with anyone else on the Court.

A justice who agrees with the results reached by the majority of the court but wants to voice disapproval of the grounds on which decsion was made would write a what?

a concurring opinion

What is a concurring opinion?

In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion 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 jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion 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 jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.

What is a consenting opinion?

A concurring opinion is a separate opinion written by a judge who agrees with the majority decision of the court but for different reasons or a different interpretation of the law. It provides additional insight or perspective to the court's decision.

What does a justice write if he agrees with the opinion of the Court but not its reasoning?

The opinion is typically labeled "Concurring in Judgment."

An opinion written by a Supreme Court justice who agrees with a case but does not agree with its legal logic is called a?

concurring opinion

What types of opinions does the supreme court issue?

Written OpinionsThe four most common opinions:MajorityConcurringDissentingPer CuriamThe Court's Opinion (usually also the majority opinion) is synonymous with the Court's decision. The "Opinion of the Court" gives the verdict and explains the reasoning behind the decision reached. The privilege of writing the official opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority group, or to the Chief Justice if he voted with the majority; this person may choose to write the opinion, or may assign the task to another member of the majority. If the justices who voted against the majority wish to issue a unified opinion, they simply decide amongst themselves who will write it.Individual justices may write their own opinions, usually concurring or dissenting, regardless of whether they agree with the majority. Justices may also "join" or sign any other written opinion they agree with, even if they agree with more than one point-of-view. This generally strengthens the opinion.All published opinions except Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation.Opinion of the Court - The official opinion, whether unanimous or by majority voteMajority opinion - Also called the "Opinion of the Court," this is the official verdict in the case that represents the vote of the majority of justicesPlurality opinion - A concurring opinion joined by more justices than the official Court opinionDissenting opinion - An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majorityDissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who voted with the majority on the decision, but disagrees with a portion of the reasoning in the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingUnanimous opinion - An opinion authored by one justice, often (but not always) the Chief Justice, and signed by all justicesConcurring opinion - An opinion that agrees with the decision but may disagree with the some of the reasoning behind the Court opinion, or may elaborate on a point made or introduce further relevant informationConcurring in part - Typically an opinion written by a justice who voted against the majority, but agrees with a portion of the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingConcurring in judgment - An opinion written by a justice who agrees with the decision, but not with the reasoning used to reach the decisionConcurring in part and dissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who may have voted either way, but wants to explain which points are in agreement and which are in disagreement.Per Curiam opinion: The opinion is given by the full court, unsigned by the JusticesSeriatim opinion: Each justice on the Court writes his or her own, separate opinion; there is no majority opinion, only a majority verdict. This type of opinion was more common in the 18th, and parts of the 19th, centuriesThe most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision.Sometimes the court issues so many separate opinions that whichever opinion is joined by the most justices is referred to as a plurality, rather than a majority. One recent example of a decision holding a plurality opinion is that of Baez et al., v. Rees (2008), where Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito signed one opinion, and Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, as did Justices Scalia, Breyer, and Thomas (Scalia also joined Thomas' concurrence). Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.There are also a number of cases where members of the majority each wrote a concurring opinion, without creating a unified majority or plurality opinion, as well as cases where the court decision was released without the signature of any justice, in an anonymous fashion. This latter form is known as a per curiam decision. Bush v. Gore (2000) is a recent example. Cases decided per curiam do not create a precedent that can be cited in future litigation.Plurality and per curiam decisions tend to create confusion as to how a federal or constitutional law is to be interpreted.