« Michael Evan Gold`s vast knowledge and experience provides a clear and comprehensive understanding of complex legal issues. A very engaging and entertaining book that will be of immense value to those studying this and related fields. Originally published in 1949, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning is widely recognized as a classic text. The introductory sentence says: « It is an attempt to describe in general terms the process of legal reasoning in the field of jurisprudence and the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. » In elegant and clear prose, Edward H. Levi does this succinctly, providing an intellectual basis for generations of students as well as for readers in general. The two central forms of legal reasoning are arguments drawn from precedents and analogies. These can be found in many legal systems such as the common law, which is found in both England and the United States. The acceptance of the law and the tendency to work within the existing legal framework are inherent in legal reasoning. It is true that there is a tendency to maintain the existing rules. Nevertheless, bias does not presuppose the law because it is fair, equitable or practical and therefore immune to change. In Socratically taught courses, even the most gifted students can fight, and many more are lost in the fog for months. Gold offers a meta-approach to teaching legal thinking and highlighting the reasoning process.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to address the elements mentioned in a clear and concise manner. This can be done with deductive or analytical thinking. Some essential elements are included in the explanatory memorandum and need to be addressed: balance is an indispensable instrument of legal argumentation, both in the interpretation and application of fundamental and human rights and in many other areas of law. However, the objectivity, rationality and legitimacy of this method are now being questioned. It is criticised as irrational and arbitrary, as a threat to legal certainty and as an illegitimate interference by the courts in the political sphere. Here, the court justifies its decision and helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and respect the judgment in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the « Discussion or Analysis » section must be well-founded and written. It is a means of drawing decisions from another legal opinion or an existing constitutional or legislative provision and applying them in another case.
The rule statement is usually broad and not narrow when deductive reasoning is used. This approach is mechanical and therefore effective only in ideal and often unsatisfactory situations. Legal reasoning shows why and how the court, lawyer or judge came to his or her decision or reasoning in the case. Legal reasoning is a method of thinking and reasoning used by lawyers and judges when applying legislation to certain interactions between legal entities. The legal justification for a court decision can be found in the « Discussion or Analysis » section of the court decision. Using examples from both law and everyday life, Gold`s book will help first-year and law students understand legal discourse. The book analyzes and illustrates the principles of legal reasoning, such as logical deduction, analogies and distinctions, and the application of law to facts, and even solves the puzzle of how to recognize a problem. For this edition, the book includes a substantial new preface by the eminent contemporary jurist Frederick Schauer, who usefully places this seminal book in its historical and legal context and explains its enduring value and relevance for understanding the role of analogous thought in law. This volume will continue to be of great value to students of logic, ethics and political philosophy, as well as to members of the legal profession and all those dealing with problems of government and jurisprudence.
Customer reviews, including star ratings of products, help customers learn more about the product and decide if it`s right for them. Michael Evan Gold holds a BA from the University of California, Berkeley and a JD from Stanford Law School. He is currently an Associate Professor of Industrial Relations, Law and History at the ILR School at Cornell University. He is the author of A Dialogue on Comparable Worth, An Introduction to Labour Law and An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination. `); doc.close(); } } this.iframeload = function() { var iframe = document.getElementById(iframeId); iframe.style.display = « ; setTimeout(function () { setIframeHeight(initialResizeCallback); }, 20); } function getDocHeight(doc) { var contentDiv = doc.getElementById(« iframeContent »); var docHeight = 0; if(contentDiv){ docHeight = Math.max( contentDiv.scrollHeight, contentDiv.offsetHeight, contentDiv.clientHeight ); } return docHeight; } function setIframeHeight(resizeCallback) { var iframeDoc, iframe = document.getElementById(iframeId); iframeDoc = ((iframe.contentWindow && iframe.contentWindow.document) || iframe.contentDocument); if (iframeDoc) { var h = getDocHeight(iframeDoc); if (h && h != 0) { iframe.style.height = parseInt(h) + `px`; if(typeof resizeCallback == « function ») { resizeCallback(iframeId); } } else if (nTries This includes identifying similarities and differences of facts in the previous and in the case to be determined. Once identified, it is then decided whether the case to be determined is similar or different from the previous one in important aspects of the issue to be decided. Depending on the conclusions, the precedent can then be continued or distinguished. However, precedents and analogies raise philosophical problems. For example, when are two cases considered « equal » for the purposes of setting precedents? When two cases are considered « similar » to justify an analogy? Why should the decision in the first case affect the decision in the second case in both cases? In the Italian-German dictionary you will find more translations. Download the free Kindle app and read your Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer, no Kindle device required.
