what is a document where attorney use legal reasoning

What is the basic pattern of legal reasoning?

Forms of legal reasoning are the methods that lawyers use to apply laws to facts in order to answer legal questions. The meaning of a legal rule and how it should be applied are often subject to multiple interpretations. When the meaning of a legal rule is ambiguous, lawyers use legal reasoning to argue for

What is an introduction to legal reasoning by Edward Levi?

The basic pattern of legal reasoning is reasoning by example.2 It is reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation. The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases ...

What is the first step in effective legal reasoning?

Legal Sir reasoning is reasoning about the requirements and application of the law Edward Coke (1607): “the common law itself is nothing else but reason; which is understood of an artificial perfection of reason, gotten by long study, observation, and experience, and not of every man‟s natural reason”. contrast, the modern, but not universal, view is that legal reasoning is not a …

What are some examples of reasoning by analogy in law?

III. REASONING A. Background. A judge cannot merely render an opinion on an issue and stop there. He must articulate a legitimate reason why he has ruled in such a manner. B. One form of Reasoning is "Syllogism" (Sin e ism) . This is deductive reasoning using a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. 1. Example.

What type of reasoning do lawyers use?

Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general. Lawyers use inductive reasoning to synthesize rules.Aug 3, 2011

What is a legal reasoning?

Legal reasoning is a method of thought and argument used by lawyers and judges when applying legal rules to specific interactions among legal persons. Legal reasoning in the case of a court's ruling is found in the 'Discussion or Analysis' section of the judicial ruling.Aug 5, 2016

What is a legal analysis paper?

The heart of any memorandum or brief a written argument; to brief a case is to provide a summarization of the case's facts and analyze the specific legal issues is the analysis. Legal analysis is the application of law the rules, standards, and enforceable expectations of society to fact.

What is rule based reasoning in law?

Legal reasoning is also called “rule-based reasoning,” which means that it follows specific rules. For example, a rule that specifies a test with mandatory elements lists all the necessary conditions that must be met in order for the rule to be applicable.

What are the 4 steps in legal reasoning?

Steps in Legal Reasoning 1) Issue - What specifically is being debated? 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issue? 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rule? 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the facts.

What is IRAC method of legal reasoning?

The IRAC method is a framework for organizing your answer to a business law essay question. The basic structure is: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Using this simple framework for structuring your answer will ensure that you have written a complete answer.

How do you write a legal persuasive argument?

Eight Easy Rules for Persuasive Legal WritingKeep paragraphs within 2 to 7 sentences. ... Keep sentences under 60 words. ... Avoid unnecessary detail. ... Banish passive voice. ... Use key words to signify your argument. ... Define your opponent's argument. ... Edit as you go.Nov 14, 2017

How do you write a legal analysis of a law?

AnalysisFollow the Factors that You Presented in Your Explanation. ... Rule-based reasoning. ... Paragraphing or Subsections. ... Organizing Your Analysis Paragraphs. ... Topic sentence. ... Precedent case law. ... Your client's facts. ... Be Sure to Compare and Contrast.More items...

How do you write a legal reasoning?

Writing a legal argumentidentify relevant legal issues.apply the law to the facts.structure your answer clearly and logically (use the model plan)use appropriate language for a legal argument.

What is the pretense of law?

The pretense is. that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense. has long been under attack.'. In an important sense legal rules are never. clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society. would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and.

What is the meaning of statutes?

The interpretation of the meaning. of statutes, as applied to justiciable controversies, is exclusively a judicial function. This duty requires one body of public servants, the judges, to construe the meaning. of what another body, the legislators, has said.

Automating the legal Reasoning Process: A Computer That Uses Regulations and Statutes to Draft Legal Documents

Research Attorney, American Bar Foundation, and Lecturer, Chicago‐Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, and Northwestern University School of Law. B.S.E. (1964) and J.D. (1967), University of Michigan.

Abstract

Several years ago, the American Bar Foundation initiated a modest investigation into the feasibility of designing a computer that could automate the assembly of form legal documents such as wills, trusts, complaints, and the like.

What is beyond a reasonable doubt?

beyond a reasonable doubt - Standard required to convict a criminal defendant of a crime. The prosecution must prove the guilt so that there is no reasonable doubt to the jury that the defendant is guilty.

What is the appellant in a lawsuit?

To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal.". Both the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal, and the party doing so is called the appellant. Appeals can be made for a variety of reasons including improper procedure and asking the court to change its interpretation of the law.

How many judges are in a court of appeals?

Refers to court sessions with the entire membership of a court participating, rather than the usual quorum. U.S. courts of appeals usually sit in panels of three judges, but may expand to a larger number in certain cases they deem important enough to be decided by the entire court.

How many people are on a federal criminal jury?

Federal criminal juries consist of 12 persons. Federal civil juries consist of six persons. plaintiff - The person who files the complaint in a civil lawsuit. plea - In a criminal case, the defendant's statement pleading "guilty" or "not guilty" in answer to the charges in open court.

What is an affidavit in court?

affidavit - A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making it. Affidavits must be notarized or administered by an officer of the court with such authority. affirmed - Judgment by appellate courts where the decree or order is declared valid and will stand as decided in the lower court.

What is the power of an appellate court?

appellate - About appeals; an appellate court has the power to review the judgment of another lower court or tribunal. arraignment - A proceeding in which an individual who is accused of committing a crime is brought into court, told of the charges, and asked to plead guilty or not guilty.

What is bail in criminal law?

bail - Security given for the release of a criminal defendant or witness from legal custody (usually in the form of money) to secure his/her appearance on the day and time appointed.

Overview

The work product doctrine states that an adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation.

Further Reading

For more on the work product doctrine, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this St. John's Law Review article, and this National Law Review article .

What are the facts of a case?

The ”facts”of the case describe what happened to cause the dispute. The facts may describe behavior, who or what engaged in that behavior, the reasons for the behavior, when and where the behavior occurred, circumstances at the time the behavior occurred, who or what was affected, how they were affected, and so on.

What does "shall" mean in a rule?

The italicized word “shall” – a single word buried among all the others – tells you that the conduct described by the other words is required.

What is a trier of fact?

A trier-of-fact (such as a jury or hearing officer) may have considered the evidence and decided the facts. A professor may have prepared a statement of facts for an exam question. Other times, the facts must be ascertained from scratch.

What happens if a dog bites a person?

Another straightforward example: “If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten . . . . ” [Italics mine.]

What is analogical reasoning?

To serve the goals of good results and fair notice, analogical reasoning, especially as part of system of precedent, must and does make implicit reference to norms that themselves can undergo clarification and refinement through application.

Why do lawyers use analogies?

Sometimes, a lawyer may try to use a global analogy to take the entire legal situation and compare it with a nonlegal one in order to elicit sympathies from the decision maker.

What was the case in Adams v. New Jersey?

In Adams v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., (12) a steamboat passenger sued the owner after the theft of valuables from the rented cabin ; neither passenger nor owner had been negligent. The passenger claimed the owner nonetheless was strictly responsible, regardless of any failure or compliance with care, in light of prior case ruling that innkeepers were strictly liable for the theft of boarders' valuables. The owner argued against strict liability and pointed to precedents rejecting liability claims by passengers on open-berth sleeping trains. For purposes of liability for theft from a passenger, should the steamboat owner be viewed as more like the innkeeper or more like the train owner? The court reasoned that "A steamer carrying passengers upon the water, and furnishing them with rooms and entertainment, is, for all practical purposes, a floating inn, and hence the duties which the proprietors owe to the passengers in their charge ought to be the same." (13) The court noted that both innkeepers and steamboat operators are entrusted with high levels of confidence in the face of temptations by many to endanger guests. Given this parallel relationship to guests, innkeepers and steamboat operators should bear the same kinds of duties to guests. (14)

How does reasoning by analogy work?

Reasoning by analogy works by inferring from the recognition that two items share some traits that they share an additional trait that one of them is known to possess or by judging that because two items share some traits they should be characterized or treated in a similar way. (7) To be persuasive, the comparison must appeal to a sense ...

Why is it wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights?

We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.".

What is the doctrine of res judicata?

The doctrine of res judicata -- claim preclusion -- directs that a judgment on the merits of a controversy bars subsequent actions between the same parties upon the same claim. Discerning what suits should be precluded often engages courts and parties in analogical reasoning.

How to determine the base point of a comparison?

The three steps of 1) locating a base for comparison; 2) identifying similarities and differences between the base and the disputed instance; and 3) determining whether the similarities are more weighty than the differences are also used in the process of reasoning by disanalogy. Here the base point is used to demonstrate why the disputed instance is sufficiently different to warrant treatment different than that accorded to the base point. Consider this in the context of inherently dangerous objects. Let's assume that a gun has already been treated as an inherently dangerous object. Should a lamp that exploded be treated similarly as an inherently dangerous object? Perhaps we note that the gun was designed to injure while the lamp was not.