Legal reasoning reveals why and how the court, lawyer or judge came to their decision or argument on the case. There are core elements that must appear and be addressed in the reasoning: The question or the legal issue before the court
Full Answer
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.
Legal Reasoning. Legal reasoning in the case of a court’s ruling is found in the ‘Discussion or Analysis’ section of the judicial ruling. It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings.
Three methods of legal reasoning/logic are: The above shall be expatiated below: Inductive Reasoning/Logic: Inductive reasoning is the one used by a lawyer if he supports his claim with judicial provisions. In this instance, the lawyer first states the court holdings in different cases, he then applies it to the case at hand.
It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the ‘discussion or analysis’ section must be well reasoned and written. The two central forms of legal reasoning are arguments from precedent and analogy.
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.
Reasoning is the way in which the court applied the rules/ legal principles to the particular facts in the case to reach its decision. This includes syllogistic application of rules as well as policy arguments the court used to justify its holding (why the decision was socially desirable).
Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general. Lawyers use inductive reasoning to synthesize rules. In other words, lawyers take the holdings from several cases and by synthesizing those specific cases, they come up with a general rule.
Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail.
Two essential cognitive abilities for legal reasoning models include: case-based reasoning, the use of legal precedents to interpret open-textured or conflicting rules and concepts; and adversarial reasoning, the ability to create persuasive arguments for both sides of an issue.
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.
In this section we examine three forms of legal reasoning which are used by lawyers and judges in the common law. Inductive, deductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy.
7 types of reasoningDeductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that uses formal logic and observations to prove a theory or hypothesis. ... Inductive reasoning. ... Analogical reasoning. ... Abductive reasoning. ... Cause-and-effect reasoning. ... Critical thinking. ... Decompositional reasoning.
Approach refers to moving toward the bench, a witness, or the jury box in court. An attorney may approach the bench in order to have a conversation with the judge and opposing counsel off the record and/or out of the jury's earshot.
Adjudication: A decision or sentence imposed by a judge.
Lawyers base their arguments on rules, analogies, policies, principles, and customs. Rule-based reasoning relies on the use of syllogisms, or arguments based on formal logic. A syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
It is a form of moving from the specific to the general. Syllogism/Deductive Reasoning: This form of reasoning is used by a lawyer in most cases in which he uses statutes as authority. It is a form of logic in which the lawyer starts from a major premise, advances to a minor premise and then draws a conclusion.
Legal reasoning simply concerns itself with learning how to think like a lawyer. In order to fully understand legal reasoning, the language of the law would first be highlighted, there would be definition of some key terms and finally, the different methods of legal reasoning would be discussed.
Three methods of legal reasoning/logic are: Inductive reasoning. Syllogism/ deductive reasoning. Analogical reasoning. The above shall be expatiated below:
Inductive Reasoning/Logic: Inductive reasoning is the one used by a lawyer if he supports his claim with judicial provisions. In this instance, the lawyer first states the court holdings in different cases, he then applies it to the case at hand. It is a form of moving from the specific to the general.
The main purpose of studying legal method is to equip the law student with the right tools to enable him to think like a lawyer. This is what would be addressed by discussing legal reasoning. To understand it better, it would be best if the meaning of legal reasoning is expatiated upon. The word “reasoning” has been defined by The Concise Oxford ...
The Black’s Law Dictionary 9th ed further defines “legal” as: “Of or relating to law; falling within the province of law”. From the above definitions, one can deduce a definition of legal reasoning as the art of thinking persuasively in a coordinated, orderly, sensible and logical manner in relation to law.
An example of a legal principle is the principle of natural justice. If a lower court’s decision is made in violation of this principle, it is likely to be struck out on appeal.
If you haven’t watched Breaking Bad (how could you), you need to watch it first. Saul Goodman’s character was introduced in the series that gave a villain for the ages. He is a witty and sleazy lawyer with a weird sense of humor.
Daredevil takes a darker tone than Marvel movies and even other Marvel Netflix series. Matt Murdock is a blind lawyer by the day and a vigilante with enhanced senses by the night. Most cases are solved by hand to hand combat in the dark alleys of Hell’s Kitchen because, well, superhero!
A fast-paced show with a number of twists, How to Get Away With Murder sees Viola Davis and her students get involved in a murder mystery. In fact, a lot of people die and you will quickly realize it is a Game of Thrones for the modern world. Every season, important characters dying in unexpected ways and situations.
O.J. Simpsons’ murder trial is considered to be trial of the century by many. The trial itself was covered widely by the media, and talked about by the people at all levels. A car chase and a trial that was so public and much publicized.
Blue Bloods is all about police procedures and the law and order side of it. The action is realistic and the acting is excellent. The story revolves around the Reagans, a family with generations of cops who love what they do and are exceedingly good at it.
NCIS is a government agency that is tasked with solving crimes that happen in the Navy and Marine Corps. Not something you come across everyday. With 15 seasons, I think the showrunners didn’t know just where to stop. Still, NCIS makes for a compelling law and order drama series that remains popular even today.
Scandal is loosely based on the life of Judy Smith, a real-life Washington D.C. fixer who frequently represented high profile politicians and athletes like Monica Lewinsky and Kobe Bryant. The show revolves around Olivia Pope, and her job is to help these high profile people when they are involved in a scandal. Sounds familiar?