Demystifying legal reasoning
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Demystifying legal reasoning
(Cambridge introductions to philosophy and law)
Cambridge University Press, 2008
- : hbk.
- : pbk.
Available at 14 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
Includes bibliographical references (p. 237-245) and index
Description and Table of Contents
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.
Table of Contents
- Part I. Law and its Function: 1. Moral controversy
- Part II. Common Law Reasoning: Deciding Cases When Prior Judicial Decisions Determine the Law: 2. Ordinary reason applied to law: natural reasoning and deduction from rules
- 3. The mystification of common-law reasoning
- 4. Common law practice
- Part III. Reasoning from Canonical Legal Text: 5. Interpreting statutes and other posited rules
- 6. Infelicities of the intended meaning of canonical texts and norms constraining interpretation
- 7. Non-intentionalist interpretation
- 8. Is constitutional interpretation different? Why it isn't and is
- 9. All or nothing.
by "Nielsen BookData"