Which term best describes a judge's opinion that differs from the majority?

The term that best describes a judge's opinion that differs from the majority is "dissent." A dissenting opinion is written by a judge who disagrees with the outcome or reasoning of the majority opinion in a case. This type of opinion articulates the judge's individual perspective on the matter and often provides a different interpretation of the law, facts, or judicial reasoning.

Dissenting opinions are important within the judicial system, as they can highlight alternative viewpoints, provoke further discussion about the law, and potentially influence future cases. They serve as a record of disagreement and can lead to changes in legal interpretations over time.

In contrast, a concurring opinion is written by a judge who agrees with the majority’s conclusion but has different reasons for reaching that conclusion. The majority opinion represents the views of the majority of judges on the case and outlines the official decision. A unanimous opinion indicates that all judges agree on the outcome, having no differing views among them. Each of these terms has a distinct meaning, but only the dissent specifically denotes a disagreement with the majority.