Talk:Concurring opinion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
For the May 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Concurring opinion.
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Abbreviation should be deleted-- incomplete and unhelpful[edit]
where is this abbreviation from? It is not used by law practitioners as far as I know and it does not seem like it should be in the article. That abreviation does not appear in the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaduris (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 May 2007
Non-binding nature of a concurring opinion[edit]
Shouldn't something be added as to the non-binding nature of concurring opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.149.128 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Concurring opinion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207160339/http://frederic-rolin.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/04/18/note-sous-cedh-12-avril-2006-martinie-c-france.html to http://frederic-rolin.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/04/18/note-sous-cedh-12-avril-2006-martinie-c-france.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to delete line inserted by someone who clearly doesn't understand what is a concurring opinion[edit]
I am proposing to delete the line beginning "Concurring opinions may be held by courts but not expressed..."
Whomever wrote this doesn't understand what is a concurring opinion. A concurring opinion by definition is an overt written expression of the views of a minority of the members of a court who are joining in the majority disposition. If a judge's viewpoints are not expressed, they are merely concurring viewpoints or thoughts, but not a concurring opinion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)