A concurring opinion is an explanation provided by a judge who votes with the majority but explains their rationale. A unanimous opinion is a ruling by the court that is 9-0. A dissenting opinion is one made by a court or judges who disagree with the prevailing party. There is no such thing as an appelate court, which means that its decisions are only binding on the parties to the case. As such, any subsequent court can and most likely will reach a different conclusion based on the facts of another case. In the case at hand, the dissenting judges felt that the plaintiff failed to prove her case by evidence that was not beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority ruled that proof needed to be only "probable" instead of "certain." This shows that there is not always agreement between the majority and minority opinions in cases where they both issue rulings. Sometimes, they may even issue conflicting opinions. For example, in this case, one judge found that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff's husband while another judge concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to find his arrest to be lawful. As mentioned earlier, concurring opinions are not meant to be published along with the majority opinion so that the public can see how each judge voted on specific issues before them. However, dissents are usually published along with the majority opinion so that people know what arguments other judges were willing to make even if they did not prevail.