What type of opinion does a judge write when they agree with the majority holding for different reasons?

A judge writes a concurring opinion when they agree with the majority holding but for different reasons. This occurs when a judge acknowledges the outcome reached by the majority of the court but wishes to articulate their own reasoning or perspective that leads to the same conclusion. A concurring opinion can provide additional insights or highlight different legal principles that the judge believes also support the decision.

In contrast, a dissenting opinion is penned by a judge who disagrees with the majority's decision entirely and outlines their objections. The majority opinion is the official ruling of the court and reflects the views of the judges who voted for that outcome, while a separate opinion often refers to an opinion that is distinct but may not clearly identify as concurring or dissenting. Since a concurring opinion serves to align with the majority stance while offering a unique rationale, it effectively captures the essence of this type of judicial writing.