A concurring opinion is delivered when at least two justices, but less than a majority, hold the same opinion in a case. explains the chief justice's position on a case. explains why the Court accepted the case in the first place. is a separate view written by a justice who votes with the majority but disagrees with its reasoning. is delivered when the Court interprets a constitutional issue.

. is a separate view written by a justice who votes with the majority but disagrees with its reasoning.

Explanation:

a concurring opinion occurs when a written opinion by a judge of an appellate court agrees with the opinion of most judges on the same case but judges his opinion or bases his decision on the case on a different reason or view of the case. Concurring opinions are not reported meaning they're not expressed but only held by judges. A concurring opinion supported by a higher number of judges is called a plurality opinion

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )