Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The Supreme Court upheld a law on Friday that could cause TikTok to go dark in the US. In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the law would be effective. "Whether this ...
In her concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court may soon become "a veritable Supreme Board of Sign Review". [57] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which she was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer. [58]
In Marks v.United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), the Supreme Court of the United States explained how the holding of a case should be viewed where there is no majority supporting the rationale of any opinion: "When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by ...
The Supreme Court delivered a major blow ... of free expression and do not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further that interest,” the court added. In a concurring opinion ...
In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered sections. This allows judges who write an opinion "concurring in part" or "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not.
In that situation, several concurring opinions may be written, none of which is the view of a majority of the members of the court. Therefore, the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion. Normally, appellate courts (or panels) are staffed with an odd number of judges to avoid a tie.
In their concurring opinion, the three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued against “a chaotic state-by-state patchwork ...