concurring opinion
Mar. 9th, 2009 05:57 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
lizkabg.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
ru_translateЛюди знающие,
В предложении
A member of the composition who does not agree with the decision of the majority, shall sign the decision by concurring opinion which shall be motivated.
это следует перевести как особое мнение или совпадающее мнение?
Заранее большое всем спасибо!
В предложении
A member of the composition who does not agree with the decision of the majority, shall sign the decision by concurring opinion which shall be motivated.
это следует перевести как особое мнение или совпадающее мнение?
Заранее большое всем спасибо!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 06:20 pm (UTC)In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision.
?
It may sound glib as I know next to nothing about the subject but it looks like the term in question indicates the disagreement with majority, although it's in style rather than in substance (result of the judgement vs the reasoning leading to it).
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 06:35 pm (UTC)That is a dissent.
Someone who write a concurring opinion does agree with the decision of the majority, but diagrees with the grounds for the decisions.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:29 am (UTC)or
"who does not fully agree with the decision of the majority" (I suppose in this case it could still be a concurring opinion).
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 06:54 am (UTC)