134k views
4 votes
One or more justices who agree with the majority's conclusions about a case, but do so for different reasons, write a(n) a. majority opinion. c. dissenting opinion. b. unanimous opinion. d. concurring opinion.

User Dicroce
by
8.8k points

1 Answer

3 votes

Final answer:

A justice who agrees with the majority's conclusions about a case, but does so for different reasons, would write a d. concurring opinion.

Step-by-step explanation:

A justice who agrees with the majority's conclusions about a case, but does so for different reasons, would write a concurring opinion. This is an opinion written by a justice who agrees with the Court's majority opinion but has different reasons for doing so. It allows the justice to express their viewpoint and highlight a different point of law or reason for reaching the same conclusion.

Thus, a concurring opinion is a written statement by a judge who agrees with the majority's decision in a legal case but offers additional or different reasoning. It provides an individual judge's perspective, supporting the outcome while expressing nuanced legal interpretations or emphasizing particular aspects of the case.

User Williezh
by
7.8k points