When a justice agrees with the decision but not the reasoning of the decision, he or she writes a

question 4 options:

concurring opinion

dissenting opinion

unanimous opinion

majority opinion

Concurring opinion

Explanation:

A concurring opinion is opinion written by one or more judges in which they are accepting the decision but not the reasons of it.  In that case, justice, have to make an explanation and define the reasoning of the information and facts.  

Majority and concurring opinion are bonded because judges reveal the understatement of the majority opinion.

answer; 5% is your answer; ///good luck

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.