concurring opinion. In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion and a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment (which are joined only by a minority). In some jurisdictions (e.g., California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts to conc. opn. Terminology at the various courts At the International Court of Justice, the term "separate opinion" is used and judges can also add declarations to the judgment. The term concurring opinion is used at the Supreme Court of the United States. The European Court of Human Rights uses the term concurring opinion and calls both concurring and dissenting opinions separate opinions. Judges very rarely add declarations to the judgment. Historically the Law Lords of the United Kingdom gave each an opinion of their own and no aggregated judgment was provided. However, the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom allows for such aggregated judgements, and it is theoretically possible for such concurring opinions to now arise. Notable concurring opinions Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis, free speech, became precedent 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944), Justice Roger Traynor, strict liability for manufacturers, became precedent 19 years later in Greenman v. Yuba Power. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), Justice Robert H. Jackson, definitive test for the limits of Presidential power. Katz v. United States (1967), Justice John Marshall Harlan II, formulated the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test for determining the reasonableness of a search. References Judicial legal terminology Common law legal terminology de:Sondervotum pl:Votum separatum