+0

Hi,

Could you please explain for me the meaning of" a dissent with three others concurring" in the following text?

The last thing Justice Fisk read was McElwayne's dissent in the case of Jeannette Baker v. Krane Chemical Corporation. It was widely assumed to be a dissent with three others concurring. The majority opinion was written by Justice Calligan. Romano was working on a concurring opinion.

What is exactly a dissent with three others concurring, and why it is assumed, taking in to account that the dissent is already written and Fisk read it.

Thanks

+0
anonymousWhat is exactly a dissent with three others concurring,

Three people (presumably three judges) agreed with each other about something, and a fourth person disagreed.

anonymouswhy it is assumed, taking in to account that the dissent is already written and Fisk read it.

The exact numbers of people on one side or another, at the time the opinion was voiced, was presumably not known for certain but was just assumed.

Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Thanks for the reply. Yes. The context is about a decision making process in a Supreme Court. I appreciate your reply, but what I still don't understand is the meaning of a dissent opinion and a concurring opinion. My understanding from your reply is that these two are interchangeable, which of course is not a valid interpretation. Your further remarks would be highly appreciated.

Thanks

As I expect you know, "concur" means "agree" and "dissent" means "disagree", so a "concurring opinion" is an opinion that expresses agreement with someone/something, and a "dissenting opinion" is an opinion that expresses disagreement with something/someone. The identity of "someone/something" can only be determined from the context.

Looking again at this particular example, sorry, I'm now not sure about it. I'm not certain now what the "three others" are agreeing about -- whether they are agreeing between themselves about a verdict, or whether they are all agreeing with another party (or previous verdict/decision), or whether, in fact, they are agreeing with the person who dissents. I think it is not very clear. Perhaps someone else can chime in with a view on it.