A Primer on Legal Reasoning by Gold, Michael Evan -- Read -- Imperial Library of Trantor

Index

Introduction § 1. Issues I. Definitions II. Creation of Issues III. Resolution of Issues

A. Frame the Issue in the Dispute B. Find the Facts That Pertain to the Issue C. Identify and Interpret, or if Necessary Create, the Authority That Governs the Issue D. Apply Law to Fact (i.e. use the authority to determine the legal consequences of the facts of the dispute)

IV. Identifying Issues

A. Identifying Issues in Documents

The College Daily When Is an Offer Accepted?

B. Identifying Issues in Facts

The Coconut Cases

V. Review

Sally’s Case The Case of the Research Papers

VI. References § 2. Identifying the Governing Rule of Law I. Definition of a Rule of Law II. Identifying an Existing Rule of Law

The Refusal to Bargain Case A. Identifying the Governing Rule of Law Using Precedents B. Identifying the Governing Rule of Law Using Authoritative Texts

Two Cases of Second Thoughts Diallo’s Case Niner’s Case Packard Motor Car Company

III. Review IV. References § 3. Levels of Abstraction I. Levels of Abstraction: The Basic Idea II. The Definition of “Level of Abstraction”

A. Unrelated Issues and Levels of Abstraction B. Related Issues and Levels of Abstraction

Ben and Gerrie’s Case

III. Why the Level of Abstraction Matters

Guenevere v. Arthur

IV. Review

Mary’s Case Wimp v. Bully The Spat

V. References § 4. Deduction I. In General

A. Syllogisms B. Enthymemes

II. Categorical Syllogisms and Quasi Syllogisms

A. The Major and Minor Premises Are Affirmative 1. The Valid Form 2. The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle B. The Major Premise Is Affirmative and the Minor Premise Is Negative 1. The Valid Form 2. The Fallacy of the Illicit Major

III. Hypothetical Syllogisms

A. Modus Ponens 1. The Valid Form 2. The Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent B. Modus Tollens 1. The Valid Form 2. The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

IV. The Soundness of Syllogisms V. Moral Syllogisms and Legal Syllogisms

A. Moral Syllogisms B. Legal Syllogisms Willie Sutton’s Case

VI. The Value of Syllogisms VII. Review § 5. Induction I. Inductive Generalizations

A. The Nature of Induction B. Probability of Conclusions C. Analysis of Arguments in the Form of Inductive Generalization D. Some Errors Associated with Inductive Generalization 1. Hasty Generalization 2. Unrepresentative Sample 3. Vivid Counterexample 4. Argument Ad Hominem 5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 6. Failure to Falsify Alternative Hypotheses Excerpt from the Phaedo by Plato

II. Statistical Syllogisms

A. The Nature of a Statistical Syllogism B. The Force of a Statistical Syllogism C. Statistical Syllogisms in Ordinary Speech

III. Practical Syllogisms IV. Review V. References § 6. Arguments in General I. Definition of an Argument II. Elements of an Argument

Should Use of Marijuana Be Legal? Katzenjammer for Congress

III. Recognizing Arguments IV. Incomplete Arguments V. Issues, Arguments, and Rhetoric VI. Review § 7. Arguments Classified by Function I. Arguments as to the Issue in a Case

Clinics v. Hospitals

II. Arguments as to the Facts III. Arguments as to the Law

A. Arguments as to Which Authority Governs the Case

Here v. There Round v. About

B. Arguments as to How to Interpret the Governing Authority

Scarpia v. Sky Puss v. Boots Don Juan in Hell Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company

IV. Arguments Applying Law to Fact V. Review VI. References § 8. Arguments Based on Evidence I. Varieties of Evidence II. Uses of Evidence § 9. Policy Arguments I. The Nature of Policy Arguments

A. Normative Claims 1. Values 2. Varieties of Arguments about Values 3. Sources of Values B. Assertions of Fact 1. Retrospective and Prospective Facts 2. Sources of Assertions of Fact

Lockouts

II. Uses of Policy Arguments

Employees or Independent Contractors?

The Case of the Bargaining Order

III. Evaluating Policy Arguments IV. Review V. References § 10. Doctrinal Arguments I. Varieties of Authority

A. Binding Authorities B. Advisory Authorities

People v. Ledfoot Sure-Tan v. National Labor Relations Board

II. Uses of Authority III. Varieties of Doctrinal Argument IV. Review V. References § 11. Analogies and Precedents: The Structure and Criteria for Evaluation of Legal Analogies I. Analogies, Similes, and Metaphors

A. The Nature of Analogies B. The Danger of Analogies

Aspasia

II. The Legal Analogy

A. Differences between an Ordinary Analogy and a Legal Analogy B. The Structure of a Legal Analogy

The Captain’s Analogy

C. Truncated Analogies 1. Failure to Demonstrate That the Facts of the Precedent Are Similar to the Facts of the Case at Bar

The Case of Illegal Questions The “Phantom Analogy” The Seat Belt Cases

2. Failure to Demonstrate That the Rationale of the Precedent Applies to the Case at Bar

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States The Case of Gay Marriage

3. Legal Citations as Truncated Analogies

The Case of the Second Bite

D. The Uses of Analogies 1. Using an Analogy to Identify the Issue

Ford Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board

2. Using an Analogy to Find the Facts 3. Using an Analogy to Identify and Interpret the Governing Rule of Law

The Taggers’ Cases

4. Using an Analogy to Apply Law to Fact

Ford Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board (continued)

E. Four Criteria for Evaluating Analogies 1. The Precedent Must Be Authoritative; If the Precedent Can Be Vitiated, the Analogy Fails 2. The Legally Significant Facts of the Precedent and the Case at Bar Must Be Analogous in the Important Ways; If the Case at Bar Can Be Distinguished from the Precedent (that is, if the legally significant facts of the case at bar and the precedent differ), the Analogy Fails 3. The Analogy Must Be Relevant to the Issue at Hand 4. No Other Analogy May Be More Convincing

Thomas the Mover

III. Review

The Fine Print Cases

IV. References § 12. Distinctions: Distinguishing Precedents, Disanalogies, and Precedents and Levels of Abstraction

The Musician’s Case

I. The Elements of a Distinction

A. Difference(s) of Fact between the Precedent and the Case at Bar B. The Importance of the Difference(s) of Fact 1. Some Differences Do Not Matter

Seth’s Case: An Unsuccessful Distinction

2. Merely Identifying Difference(s) of Fact Does Not Distinguish a Precedent from a Case at Bar: The Importance of the Difference(s) of Fact Must Be Explained

A Brick and a Rose Petal Daniela’s Case: A Successful Distinction Seymour’s Case

C. The Conclusion

Shady Sam v. Esme Seymour v. Hard Luck Hank The War between the Unions The Case of the Supervisor’s Questions Young Tom’s Case The Fine Print Cases Union Access to Company Property The Paradox of the Arrow The Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise The Paradox of the Minimum Wage

II. The Uses of Distinctions III. Disanalogies IV. Distinctions and Levels of Abstraction V. Seymour’s Case Expanded VI. Review § 13. Holding and Dictum I. Definitions II. Effect of a Holding III. The Scope or Meaning of a Holding IV. References § 14. Reductios ad Absurdum I. The Elements of a Reductio ad Absurdum II. The Criteria of a Sound Reductio ad Absurdum III. Reductios ad Absurdum in Law

A. Reductios and Precedents B. Reductios and Fact Finding

The Philosopher’s Reductio

C. Reductios and Policy Arguments

The One-Year Misunderstanding The House of Tantalus

IV. Review V. References § 15. Subjective and Objective Standards I. Standards II. Subjective Standards III. Objective Standards IV. Mixed Standards and Evidence V. Subjective versus Objective Standards VI. Review § 16. Interpreting Statutes I. Sources

A. Text of the Statute B. Purpose of the Statute C. Legislative History of the Statute D. Scholarly Publications E. Public Policy

Cannery Row

F. Administrative Interpretations G. Precedent 1. Analogous Statutes 2. Other Tribunals’ Interpretations

II. Principles

A. The Principle of Meaningfulness

Duplex v. Deering

B. The Principle of Wholeness 1. Within One Statute 2. Between Statutes

III. The Effect of Precedents on the Meaning of Statutes IV. References § 17. Prima Facie Case, Affirmative Defense, Burden of Proof I. Prima Facie Case

A. The Basic Idea B. Two Meanings of “Prima Facie Case”

Proving Battery

II. Defenses

A. Destruction of the Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case B. Affirmative Defense

A Pinch at Pong

III. Burden of Proof

A. Burden of Persuasion 1. Who Carries the Burden of Persuasion? 2. How Heavy Is the Burden of Persuasion? 3. What Happens If a Party Fails to Carry the Burden of Persuasion? B. Burden of Production

Battery on a Barstool The Two-Timer The Raid

IV. Prima Facie Case + Affirmative Defense = Rule of Law V. Review VI. References § 18. Application of Law to Fact I. Application of Law to Fact Operates Issue by Issue II. Direct Application of Law to Fact

A. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Force of Logic

Caroline’s Case Tommy’s Case

B. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Use of Judgment

The Coach Adora’s Case Amanda’s Case Ben-El’s Case

III. Application of Law to Fact Using Precedent

A. Application of Law to Fact Using Binding Precedents

The Honor Society Cases Harry the Harrier

B. Application of Law to Fact Using Guiding Precedents

The Battle of the Sexes Dipaboli’s Case Shimul’s Case

IV. Review V. References § 19. A Model of Legal Argument I. Neither a Quasi Syllogism nor a Statistical Syllogism Can Capture a Legal Argument II. A Model of Legal Argument

A. Toulmin’s Model B. Our Revision of Toulmin’s Model 1. Issues as to the Issue

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

2. Issues of Fact 3. Issues of Law 4. Issues of Application of Law to Fact

III. The Value of the Model IV. Review V. References Answers

← Prev
Back
Next →

← Prev
Back
Next →