Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court

Corley (political science, Vanderbilt U.) conducts a study of concurrence opinion writing on the US Supreme Court. He constructs a typology of concurrences, identifying concurrences as "expansive" (attempting to expand the holding or supplement the reasoning of the majority opinion), "doctrinal" (offering a different theory for supporting the Court's result), "limiting" (seeking to limit or qualify the majority holding), "reluctant" (reluctantly bowing to precedent or to the perceived need to produce a majority opinion on an important issue), or "emphatic" (emphasizing a particular aspect of a Court's holding and functioning largely as a means of clarification). He analyzes what the different factors are that can cause a justice to issue a concurring opinion within the context of the bargaining and accommodation processes of the Supreme Court. He also assesses the impact that the different types of concurring opinions have on lower court compliance and on the Supreme Court's interpretation of its own precedent. Annotation c2010 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

Pamela C. Corley is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University.