| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract
|
In law, a concurring opinion is in certain … 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 their 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 Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent and cannot be cited as such.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 an openness 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.g or dissenting opinions are not reported.
, 協同意見書（英語：Concurring opinion），法律術語，源自於英美習慣法，是一種由法院中的法官撰寫的法律意見書。當法官同意主要意見書的決定，但是他同意的理由與其他法官不同時，法官可以獨立撰寫協同意見書，以陳述自己的意見。 當法官之間意見分歧，無法形成絕對多數的主要意見書時，可能會出現數個協同意見書；而得到相對多數支持的協同意見書，被稱為複數意見書（Plurality opinion）。
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageID
|
1232161
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageInterLanguageLink
|
http://pl.dbpedia.org/resource/Votum_separatum +
, http://de.dbpedia.org/resource/Sondervotum +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageLength
|
6389
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageRevisionID
|
1118767036
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageWikiLink
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Whitney_v._California +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Escola_v._Coca-Cola_Bottling_Co. +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Robert_H._Jackson +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Marshall_Harlan_II +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/California +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Judicial_legal_terminology +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Louis_Brandeis +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/International_Court_of_Justice +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Court +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Greenman_v._Yuba_Power +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Opinion +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Binding_precedent +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Supreme_Court_of_California +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Test_case_%28law%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plurality_opinion +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Declaration_%28law%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Youngstown_Sheet_&_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Judge +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Brandenburg_v._Ohio +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Katz_v._United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Roger_Traynor +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/European_Court_of_Human_Rights +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Common_law_legal_terminology +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Majority_opinion +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Persuasive_precedent +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Judicial_opinions +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Unreferenced_section +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Short_description +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Authority_control +
|
| http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Common_law_legal_terminology +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Judicial_legal_terminology +
|
| http://purl.org/linguistics/gold/hypernym
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Opinion +
|
| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinion?oldid=1118767036&ns=0 +
|
| http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinion +
|
| owl:sameAs |
http://simple.dbpedia.org/resource/Concurring_opinion +
, http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.04kljn +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Concurring_opinion +
, http://zh.dbpedia.org/resource/%E5%8D%94%E5%90%8C%E6%84%8F%E8%A6%8B%E6%9B%B8 +
, http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1087840 +
, https://global.dbpedia.org/id/A9eP +
|
| rdf:type |
http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Work +
|
| rdfs:comment |
協同意見書（英語：Concurring opinion），法律術語，源自於英美習慣法，是一種由法院中的法官撰寫的法律意見書。當法官同意主要意見書的決定，但是他同意的理由與其他法官不同時，法官可以獨立撰寫協同意見書，以陳述自己的意見。 當法官之間意見分歧，無法形成絕對多數的主要意見書時，可能會出現數個協同意見書；而得到相對多數支持的協同意見書，被稱為複數意見書（Plurality opinion）。
, In law, a concurring opinion is in certain … 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 their 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.s is referred to as the plurality opinion.
|
| rdfs:label |
協同意見書
, Concurring opinion
|
