Legal Definitions - concurring opinion

A concurring opinion is a separate written statement by a judge who agrees with the final outcome or decision reached by the majority of the court in a particular case, but for different legal reasons or using a different line of reasoning than the majority. Instead of simply joining the majority opinion, the concurring judge chooses to write their own explanation for why they believe the same result is correct.

While a concurring opinion does not establish binding law (because it doesn't represent the majority's reasoning), it can be influential. It offers alternative legal perspectives, which lawyers might later use as persuasive arguments in future cases, or which could even lay the groundwork for future legal developments.

Here are some examples illustrating a concurring opinion:

• Scenario: Data Privacy Case

  Imagine a state supreme court hears a case about a new smartphone app that collects user data without explicit consent. The majority of the court rules that the app developer must pay damages to users because their actions violated a broad consumer protection statute designed to prevent deceptive business practices. However, one judge, Justice Chen, agrees that the app developer should be held liable and pay damages. Justice Chen believes the violation is not primarily about deceptive practices, but rather a direct infringement on a specific state constitutional right to privacy. Justice Chen writes a concurring opinion explaining that while she agrees with the outcome (the developer is liable), her legal reasoning stems from the constitutional right to privacy, not the consumer protection statute.

  This illustrates a concurring opinion because Justice Chen agrees with the ultimate decision (app developer liable) but bases her conclusion on a different legal principle (constitutional privacy right vs. consumer protection statute) than the majority.

• Scenario: Environmental Regulation Dispute

  Consider a federal appeals court reviewing a new environmental regulation issued by a government agency. The regulation aims to reduce industrial pollution in waterways. A majority of the judges uphold the regulation, finding that the agency acted within its statutory authority granted by the Clean Water Act. Judge Miller, however, writes a concurring opinion. Judge Miller agrees that the regulation should be upheld, but argues that the agency's authority to issue such a regulation is not solely derived from the Clean Water Act, but also from a broader interpretation of its mandate to protect public health under an older, more general environmental protection law. Judge Miller wants to emphasize this alternative legal basis for the agency's power.

  This demonstrates a concurring opinion as Judge Miller supports the same outcome (upholding the regulation) but offers a distinct legal justification for the agency's authority (broader environmental law vs. specific Clean Water Act provisions) compared to the majority.

• Scenario: Contract Interpretation

  A court is deciding a dispute between two companies over a complex software development contract. The majority of the court rules that Company A breached the contract by failing to deliver a functional product on time, based on an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in the contract. Justice Davies agrees that Company A breached the contract and owes damages to Company B. However, Justice Davies writes a concurring opinion, arguing that the breach was not due to an implied duty, but rather a clear violation of an explicit performance metric detailed in a specific appendix to the contract. Justice Davies believes the majority's reliance on an implied duty is unnecessary and potentially broadens contractual obligations too much, preferring a narrower interpretation based on the contract's express terms.

  This is an example of a concurring opinion because Justice Davies agrees with the final judgment (Company A breached the contract) but arrives at that conclusion through a different legal interpretation of the contract's terms (explicit performance metric vs. implied duty of good faith) than the majority.