What Exactly is Legal Reasoning

Most of us, no matter how modest we may be about our accomplishments, pride ourselves on our "good sense." And the legal system is founded on that belief. The test of liability for tortuous actions is whether a reasonable person (i.e. one of good sense) would act similarly in similar circumstances.

Click Here to Find Law Student Jobs on LawCrossing

For the basic process of legal reasoning involves comparing cases to decide whether the law governing those cases is also applicable to your facts.

This is what judges do; this is what you as law students will do in your memo-and brief-writing, and in final examinations.

To compare cases, you will have to compare fact categories, not individual facts. What follows is an exercise to show how that is done, using simple fact statements. To place individual facts into one fact category, make a statement broad enough to include all of the facts, but no broader than necessary.

II. Using Fact Categories in Legal Analysis

In your early semesters at law school, your professors emphasize that you are learning to "think like a lawyer." Learning to reason from precedent is part of that process. Learning to think in terms of fact categories instead of individual facts is another part. Once you have placed individual facts into fact categories, you can analyze and compare them more skillfully.

SIMS:

·        Both Doe and Smith claim illegal firing (Doe for union activities. Smith for reporting sexual harassment and assault).

·         Both work records, written by supervisors, indicate unsatisfactory performance on the job.

DISSIMS:

·        Doe engaged in outside activity, but Smith "blew the whistle" on her supervisor.

GAPS:

·         Was the manager who wrote that Smith was incompetent the new manager or the former manager who was transferred? (Interview the former manager as to Smith's performance under his supervision.)

IV. Writing a Case Analysis

Your analysis should be brief, clear, and tightly reasoned.

Click Here to Find Summer Associate Jobs on LawCrossing

Analogizing involves comparing and contrasting the essential features of two or more cases. You will be analogizing cases throughout law school and in your legal practice because of the importance of the legal doctrine of precedent (stare decisis), which rests on the presumption that justice requires that persons in similar circumstances be treated similarly under the law.

In coming to decisions on the matter before them, judges apply the doctrine of precedent. Their reliance on precedent helps to avoid judicial opinions that otherwise might be based on whim or sentimentalism. The use of precedent also assures society that all persons will be treated equally under the law and allows members of society to plan their behavior knowing that they will be held to previously announce legal rules.

A court may follow any court decisions that are persuasive. Higher courts in a jurisdiction may consider persuasive the opinions of lower court decisions in the same jurisdiction and rely on those decisions, although the decisions are not binding upon the higher courts. Analogous decisions of a court in one judicial system may be adopted as persuasive by a court in another system although those decisions are not usually binding. Dictum may be persuasive when it appears in the opinion of a higher court of the same jurisdiction, although it is never binding. Dicta in decisions of the United States Supreme Court are often accorded great weight by lower courts.

(1) Compare and contrast the key facts and the issues raised in the earlier cases with the facts and the issues raised in your case.

(3) Apply those principles to your case.

These four steps may seem mechanical, but the results of analogizing are far from cut-and-dried because the decision of whether facts are similar or different is a subjective one. Only if the facts of your case are "on all fours,” you can assume that a court will find your case exactly like the previous one. Hardly ever are facts of one case exactly like those of another; that situation is about as rare as a final examination question containing exactly the facts of a case studied in your casebook! Similarity is a matter of degree: other relationships between cases may be expressed as "applicable," "analogous," "dissimilar," or "inapposite."

Your synthesis will include a comparison of the key facts, legal theories, issues, holdings, reasoning, and legal rules of the precedent cases.

(1) Write an opening statement discussing the common features of the cases.

Begin with the key (operative) facts of each case; then, by referring to your case briefs, note how the cases resemble each other and how they differ (that is, analogize and distinguish the cases).In your analysis, discuss the causes of action, the issues raised, the reasoning of the courts, the court holdings, and the resulting rules (formulated, applied, expanded, narrowed, or overturned).

B. The Synthesizing Process

To aid you in synthesizing the above three cases, you should consider preparing a chart (based on your case briefs).

In your law school legal writing classes you will probably be assigned two or more court opinions to synthesize. Then you will be given a hypothetical problem about which you must make a prediction, based upon your synthesis.