having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent (common law) and cannot be cited as such. but concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming there is no binding precedent already in effect). the conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law in the majority opinion. occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would allow the development of a new legal rule. in turn, such a concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case. a well-known example of this phenomenon is "escola v. coca-cola bottling co." (1944).