A Primer on Legal Reasoning

"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, theAuthority 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 Using Precedents 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 InductiveGeneralization 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 IV. Arguments Applying Law to Fact Don Juan in Hell V. Review Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company 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 II. Uses of Policy Arguments Lockouts Employees or Independent Contractors? III. Evaluating Policy Arguments The Case of the Bargaining Order IV. Review V. References 10. Doctrinal Arguments I. Varieties of Authority A. Binding Authorities B. Advisory Authorities II. Uses of Authority People v. Ledfoot III. Varieties of Doctrinal Argument IV. Review Sure-Tan v. National Labor Relations Board 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 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 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 precedentdiffer), 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 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 II. The Uses of Distinctions III. Disanalogies IV. Distinctions and Levels of Abstraction V. Seymour's Case Expanded Shady Sam v. Esme Seymour v. Hard Luck Hank VI. Review The War between the Unions The Case of the Supervisor's Questions Young Tom's Case The Fine Print Cases 13. Holding and Dictum I. Definitions II. Effect of a Holding III. The Scope or Meaning of a Holding Union Access to Company Property IV. References 14. Reductios ad Absurdum I. The Elements of a Reductio ad Absurdum The Paradox of the Arrow The Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise The Paradox of the Minimum Wage 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 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 The One-Year Misunderstanding VI. Review The House of Tantalus 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 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, Affi rmative 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 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 IV. Prima Facie Case + Affirmative Defense = Rule of Law V. Review Battery on a Barstool The Two-Timer VI. References 18. Application of Law to Fact I. Application of Law to Fact Operates Issue by Issue The Raid 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 IV. Review Dipaboli's Case V. References 19. A Model of Legal Argument I. Neither a Quasi Syllogism nor a Statistical Syllogism Can Capture a Legal Argument Shimul's Case 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"