An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning


Book Description

Now in its Third Edition, An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning continues to be the ideal go-to for the first year law student. It is a short, practical book that introduces beginning law students and others to contemporary law and legal reasoning. By presenting these topics through various discussions of cases and examples, it provides students with a solid source to reference for years to come.




Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning


Book Description

This course book serves an undergraduate course in introduction to legal reasoning. It is designed to initiate students in the legal methods of case law analysis and statutory interpretation, prompting students to take a critical distance from the wielding of the methods. It helps students acquire or refine the techniques of close reading, analogizing, distinguishing, positing related fact patterns, and criticizing judicial and legislative exposition and logic.







Law Legal Reasoning


Book Description




Thinking Like a Lawyer


Book Description

This primer on legal reasoning is aimed at law students and upper-level undergraduates. But it is also an original exposition of basic legal concepts that scholars and lawyers will find stimulating. It covers such topics as rules, precedent, authority, analogical reasoning, the common law, statutory interpretation, legal realism, judicial opinions, legal facts, and burden of proof. In addressing the question whether legal reasoning is distinctive, Frederick Schauer emphasizes the formality and rule-dependence of law. When taking the words of a statute seriously, when following a rule even when it does not produce the best result, when treating the fact of a past decision as a reason for making the same decision again, or when relying on authoritative sources, the law embodies values other than simply that of making the best decision for the particular occasion or dispute. In thus pursuing goals of stability, predictability, and constraint on the idiosyncrasies of individual decision-makers, the law employs forms of reasoning that may not be unique to it but are far more dominant in legal decision-making than elsewhere. Schauer’s analysis of what makes legal reasoning special will be a valuable guide for students while also presenting a challenge to a wide range of current academic theories.




Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing


Book Description

A revision of Neumann's very successful basic legal writing text, this edition continues to give a strong foundation in legal analysis and to writing while refining and further improving the text based on user's responses. The text focuses on constructing a proof of a conclusion of law and teaches format, style, and grammar alongside the reasoning skills. (Chapter 9, How to Organize Proof of a Conclusion of Law, Is widely regarded as the best explanation of this topic in any legal writing text). The goal is to help students learn how to make writing decisions based on the need to prove analysis. Of special interest are chapters on client interviewing and client letters, sample client letters, An updated citation/quotation chapter to reflect changes in the 16th Edition of the Blue Book, sections that show students how to convert their raw materials into an organized first draft, and explanations on the process of writing - in detail and in many contexts. Combining clear, readable text with effective sample documents and exercises, Neumann has succeeded in creating a sophisticated, yet accessible, text carefully crafted for beginning legal writers. Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgments PART I: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND ITS STUDY 1: An Introduction to American Law 1.1 the Origin of Common Law 1.2 How American Courts Are Organized 1.3 an Overview of the Litigation Process 1.4 the Importance of Understanding Procedure 1.5 the Adversary System 2: Rule-Based Reasoning 2.1 the Inner Structure of a Rule 2.2 Organizing the Application of a Rule 2.3 Some Things to Be Careful About with Rules 2.4 Causes of Action and Affirmative Defenses 2.5 Where Rules Come From (Sources of Law) 3: An Introduction to Judicial Opinions 3.1 the Anatomy of an Opinion 3.2 the Interdependence Among Facts, Issues, and Rules 4: Briefing Cases 4.1 Introduction 4.2 How to Brief a Case PART II: INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL WRITING 5: The Art of Legal Writing 5.1 the Language as a Professional Tool 5.2 Your Writing and Your Career 5.3 Predictive Writing and Persuasive Writing 5.4 the Art Forms of Legal Writing 6: The Process of Writing 6.1 Writing in Four Stages 6.2 Analyzing 6.3 Organizing 6.4 the First Draft 6.5 Rewriting 6.6 Some General Advice about Writing PART III: OFFICE MEMORANDA 7: Office Memoranda 7.1 Office Memorandum Format 7.2 Writing an Office Memorandum 8: Initially Obtaining the Facts: Client Interviewing 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Lawyers and Clients 8.3 How to Interview 9:Predictive Writing 9.1 How to Predict 9.2 How to Test Your Writing for Predictiveness 10: How to Organize Proof of a Conclusion of Law 10.1 A Paradigm for Structuring Proof 10.2 Why Readers Prefer This Type of Organization 10.3 How to Vary the Paradigm to Suit Your Needs 10.4 How to Start Working with the Paradigm 10.5 How to Test Your Writing for Effective Organization 11: Selecting Authority 11.1 Introduction 11.2 the Hierarchy of Authority 11.3 How Courts Use Dicta 11.4 How Courts React to Foreign Precedent 11.5 How to Use Foreign Precedent and Other Nonmandatory Authority to Fill a Gap in Local Law 11.6 How to Select Nonmandatory Precedent 11.7 How to Work Effectively in the Library 12: Working with Precedent 12.1 Eight Skills for Working with Precedent 12.2 Formulating a Variety of Rules from the Same Precedent 12.3 Analogizing and Distinguishing 12.4 Eliciting Policy from Precedent 12.5 Synthesis and Reconciliation 12.6 Testing for Realism and Marketability 12.7 Pulling it All Together 13: Working with Statutes 13.1 Ten Tools of Statutory Interpretation 13.2 How to Pull Together Statutory Analysis (Before




Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict


Book Description

The most glamorous and even glorious moments in a legal system come when a high court recognizes an abstract principle involving, for example, human liberty or equality. Indeed, Americans, and not a few non-Americans, have been greatly stirred--and divided--by the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially in the area of race relations, where the Court has tried to revolutionize American society. But these stirring decisions are aberrations, says Cass R. Sunstein, and perhaps thankfully so. In Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Sunstein, one of America's best known commentators on our legal system, offers a bold, new thesis about how the law should work in America, arguing that the courts best enable people to live together, despite their diversity, by resolving particular cases without taking sides in broader, more abstract conflicts. Sunstein offers a close analysis of the way the law can mediate disputes in a diverse society, examining how the law works in practical terms, and showing that, to arrive at workable, practical solutions, judges must avoid broad, abstract reasoning. Why? For one thing, critics and adversaries who would never agree on fundamental ideals are often willing to accept the concrete details of a particular decision. Likewise, a plea bargain for someone caught exceeding the speed limit need not--indeed, must not--delve into sweeping issues of government regulation and personal liberty. Thus judges purposely limit the scope of their decisions to avoid reopening large-scale controversies. Sunstein calls such actions incompletely theorized agreements. In identifying them as the core feature of legal reasoning--and as a central part of constitutional thinking in America, South Africa, and Eastern Europe-- he takes issue with advocates of comprehensive theories and systemization, from Robert Bork (who champions the original understanding of the Constitution) to Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, and Ronald Dworkin, who defends an ambitious role for courts in the elaboration of rights. Equally important, Sunstein goes on to argue that it is the living practice of the nation's citizens that truly makes law. For example, he cites Griswold v. Connecticut, a groundbreaking case in which the Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's restrictions on the use of contraceptives by married couples--a law that was no longer enforced by prosecutors. In overturning the legislation, the Court invoked the abstract right of privacy; the author asserts that the justices should have appealed to the narrower principle that citizens need not comply with laws that lack real enforcement. By avoiding large-scale issues and values, such a decision could have led to a different outcome in Bowers v. Hardwick, the decision that upheld Georgia's rarely prosecuted ban on sodomy. And by pointing to the need for flexibility over time and circumstances, Sunstein offers a novel understanding of the old ideal of the rule of law. Legal reasoning can seem impenetrable, mysterious, baroque. This book helps dissolve the mystery. Whether discussing the interpretation of the Constitution or the spell cast by the revolutionary Warren Court, Cass Sunstein writes with grace and power, offering a striking and original vision of the role of the law in a diverse society. In his flexible, practical approach to legal reasoning, he moves the debate over fundamental values and principles out of the courts and back to its rightful place in a democratic state: the legislatures elected by the people.




A Primer on Legal Reasoning


Book Description

After years of teaching law courses to undergraduate, graduate, and law students, Michael Evan Gold has come to believe that the traditional way of teaching – analysis, explanation, and example – is superior to the Socratic Method for students at the outset of their studies. In courses taught Socratically, even the most gifted students can struggle, and many others are lost in a fog for months. Gold offers a meta approach to teaching legal reasoning, bringing the process of argumentation to the fore. Using examples both from the law and from daily life, Gold's book will help undergraduates and first-year law students to understand legal discourse. The book analyzes and illustrates the principles of legal reasoning, such as logical deduction, analogies and distinctions, and application of law to fact, and even solves the mystery of how to spot an issue. In Gold's experience, students who understand the principles of analytical thinking are able to understand arguments, to evaluate and reply to them, and ultimately to construct sound arguments of their own.




Thinking Like a Lawyer


Book Description

This primer on legal reasoning is aimed at law students and upper-level undergraduates. But it is also an original exposition of basic legal concepts that scholars and lawyers will find stimulating. It covers such topics as rules, precedent, authority, analogical reasoning, the common law, statutory interpretation, legal realism, judicial opinions, legal facts, and burden of proof.




Demystifying Legal Reasoning


Book Description

Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning peculiar to law. Legal decision makers engage in the same modes of reasoning that all actors use in deciding what to do: open-ended moral reasoning, empirical reasoning, and deduction from authoritative rules. This book addresses common law reasoning when prior judicial decisions determine the law, and interpretation of texts. In both areas, the popular view that legal decision makers practise special forms of reasoning is false.