COMMON LAW REASONING • Role of precedent • Law is not unchanging • Distinguishing cases based on the individual facts to come to new conclusions o Judges give more or less weight to different factors • Narrow/broad interpretations of common law rulings • Rules vs. Standards o Rules: more stringent result (binding) ▪ DEMAND that a decision maker respond a certain way to the presence of triggering facts. ▪ ROL is ostensibly neutral and general; however ▪ Severe impartiality can lead to inhumane results (Think Palsgraf and ct costs) ▪ Consider: The Restatement has no precedential power…do cts sometimes neglect careful analysis of problems b/c of their willingness to defer to the restatement? ▪ Bright line rules: The more the law is settled, the more likely it is that people won’t litigate. Highly predictable outcomes. o Standard: more general interpretation (more leeway in end result) ▪ If there are multiple criteria for analyzing the law, almost always use the standards approach. ▪ direct application of a background principle or policy ▪ Standards mean that there will probably be a lot more for the jury to decide (their sympathies come into play) • Legal doctrines that collide => different levels of generality o Deciding the facts that turn the case
• Power of analogy ( usually used in “slippery slope” problems o Basically policy arguments – look at effect will be (carried to its logical conclusions) ▪ Eg, economics, incentives, etc…
• Tools of case law: (ALL USED TO CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS FOR CONCLUSIONS) o Precedent o Logic o Public policy ▪ Slippery slope arguments
