Judicial Writing Manual - Federal Judicial Center

Appendix E contains examples of dissenting opinions that take a
temperate, reasoned tone in reflecting sincere disagreement with the
majority.
Concurrences
Most of the considerations applicable to dissenting opinions also apply
to concurrences. Concurrences are appropriate where they are intended to
define with greater precision the scope of an opinion or otherwise inform
the parties and other audiences of what the writer believes are important
points. Thus, judges may issue concurrences where there are two argued
grounds for a decision, the majority justifies its decision on one of those
grounds, and other judges believe the alternative grounds should be stated.
Concurrences may also serve to indicate to parties in future cases how far
the court is willing to go down a road, and where the road ends. A
concurring opinion should not be written simply to add a point of view or
personal statement that does not further either the decisional or educational
value of the opinion. The question should be: Am I writing this for
myself or for the good of the court?
Judges should include in their concurring opinions a statement of
reasons why they are concurring specially. The point is not to present an
alternative opinion of the court, but to indicate the point of departure from
the majority and to further define the contours of the opinion. Concurrences
should not rehash the facts and legal principles on which the
majority based its decision, except to the extent that differences in the
factual findings and legal conclusions are significant to the concurring point
of view. The arguments should be principled and the tone should be
instructive but not pedantic.
Appendix F contains examples of useful and narrowly written concurring
opinions.
30