What term describes a written opinion from a judge that disagrees with the majority opinion?

The term that describes a written opinion from a judge who disagrees with the majority opinion is "dissenting opinion." In judicial contexts, when a case is decided, the majority opinion reflects the views and rationale of the larger group of judges or justices. A dissenting opinion, on the other hand, articulates the reasons why one or more judges disagree with that majority. This type of opinion can serve several purposes: it allows dissenting judges to express their differing viewpoints, provides a record of alternative interpretations of the law, and can influence future legal arguments or cases.

Dissenting opinions can be significant in the development of law, as they sometimes highlight issues that may be taken up in future cases or can lead to changes in legal standards. Additionally, they can lay the groundwork for potential future shifts in legal interpretation, particularly if a dissent becomes more widely accepted over time.

Concurring opinions support the majority decision but for different reasons, while majority opinions represent the view of most judges on the case. Supplemental opinions are not standard terminology in this context. Therefore, the correct answer illustrates a unique and important aspect of judicial decision-making.