Concurring opinion
Original research draft · October 2026
Working pattern
[Case name], [full citation], [pinpoint] ([author], concurring).
Capture from the source
Case; writing author; exact concurrence type; page; proposition
Check before you use it
Verify whether the author concurs in the opinion, judgment, or only part of the result.
Common error: A concurrence's reasoning is not automatically the majority's reasoning.
Completed example
The reporter, court, judges, case, vote alignment, and positions are invented for training. The example illustrates attribution without implying that a real concurrence carries a particular doctrinal effect.
Judge Vale proposed a narrower treatment of the survey protocol. Moss Survey v. Ridge Cartography, 9 TRAIN Rep. 200, 214 (Northmere Sup. Ct. 2025) (Vale, J., concurring in the judgment).
Read the supplied source facts
Fictional packet TRAIN-O07 presents Moss Survey v. Ridge Cartography in 9 TRAIN Rep. 200, decided by the fictional Northmere Supreme Court in 2025. The majority writing occupies pages 200–211. Judge Vale's separate writing begins on page 212 and is expressly titled Concurring in the Judgment. Its discussion of the survey protocol appears at page 214. Judge Vale agrees with the disposition but declines to join the majority's analysis of that protocol. The writer wants to discuss the narrower approach proposed by Judge Vale.
Why this works
The sentence attributes the proposition to its actual author, and the parenthetical preserves the type of concurrence. The reporter's first page still identifies the case as a whole; page 214 locates the particular separate writing. Calling this simply the court's reasoning would erase a material difference between agreement with the result and agreement with the majority's explanation. Read the separate writing's heading and the vote description rather than inferring its status from where it appears in the PDF. Attribution and pinpointing work together: a correct page does not repair an incorrect claim about whose reasoning it contains.
When the facts change
If another passage at page 207 expresses the majority's analysis, cite that passage separately and frame the comparison explicitly. Do not use one citation at page 214 for both positions. If Judge Vale joins Parts I and II but concurs only in the judgment as to Part III, identify the part relevant to the sentence before selecting the descriptive parenthetical.
Apply the receiving court or publication’s requirements. These working forms do not establish citation permission, precedential weight, or support for a legal proposition.