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.
Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent and cannot be cited as such.
Some view concurring opinions as "unnecessary confusion" that "encourage litigation" and create "legal clutter.
A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add.
Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).