Search results for 'legal reasoning' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. F. Atria (1999). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited. Law and Philosophy 18 (5):537-577.score: 240.0
    This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal (...) that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.score: 240.0
    We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.score: 240.0
    This paper describes a model of legal reasoning and a logic for reasoning with rules, principles and goals that is especially suited to this model of legal reasoning. The paper consists of three parts. The first part describes a model of legal reasoning based on a two-layered view of the law. The first layer consists of principles and goals that express fundamental ideas of a legal system. The second layer contains legal (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Tokuyasu Kakuta, Makoto Haraguchi & Yoshiaki Okubo (1997). A Goal-Dependent Abstraction for Legal Reasoning by Analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):97-118.score: 240.0
    This paper presents a new algorithm to find an appropriate similarityunder which we apply legal rules analogically. Since there may exist a lotof similarities between the premises of rule and a case in inquiry, we haveto select an appropriate similarity that is relevant to both thelegal rule and a top goal of our legal reasoning. For this purpose, a newcriterion to distinguish the appropriate similarities from the others isproposed and tested. The criterion is based on Goal-DependentAbstraction (GDA) (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Dr Richard Susskind (1989). Pragmatism and Purism in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. AI and Society 3 (1):28-38.score: 240.0
    The paper identifies and assesses the implications of two approaches to the field of artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. The first — pragmatism — concentrates on the development of working systems to the exclusion of theoretical problems. The second — purism — focuses on the nature of the law and of intelligence with no regard for the delivery of commercially viable systems. Past work in AI and law is classified in terms of this division. By reference to The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Joseph Raz (1993). On the Autonomy of Legal Reasoning. Ratio Juris 6 (1):1-15.score: 210.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Gian Piero Zarri (2007). Ontologies and Reasoning Techniques for (Legal) Intelligent Information Retrieval Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (3):251-279.score: 210.0
    An application of Narrative Knowledge Representation Language (NKRL) techniques on (declassified) ‘terrorism in Southern Philippines’ documents has been carried out in the context of the IST Parmenides project. This paper describes some aspects of this work: it is our belief, in fact, that the Knowledge Representation techniques and the Intelligent Information Retrieval tools used in this experiment can be of some interest also in an ‘Ontological Modelling of Legal Events and Legal Reasoning’ context.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Adam Wyner (2008). An Ontology in Owl for Legal Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):361-387.score: 204.0
    The paper gives ontologies in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for Legal Case-based Reasoning (LCBR) systems, giving explicit, formal, and general specifications of a conceptualisation LCBR. Ontologies for different systems allows comparison and contrast between them. OWL ontologies are standardised, machine-readable formats that support automated processing with Semantic Web applications. Intermediate concepts, concepts between base-level concepts and higher level concepts, are central in LCBR. The main issues and their relevance to ontological reasoning and to LCBR are discussed. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Alison Chorley & Trevor Bench-Capon (2005). An Empirical Investigation of Reasoning with Legal Cases Through Theory Construction and Application. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (3-4):323-371.score: 204.0
    In recent years several proposals to view reasoning with legal cases as theory construction have been advanced. The most detailed of these is that of Bench-Capon and Sartor, which uses facts, rules, values and preferences to build a theory designed to explain the decisions in a set of cases. In this paper we describe CATE (CAse Theory Editor), a tool intended to support the construction of theories as described by Bench-Capon and Sartor, and which produces executable code corresponding (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Giovanni Sartor (1992). Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.score: 192.0
    This article proposes a formal analysis of a fundamental aspect of legal reasoning: dealing with normative conflicts. Firstly, examples are illustrated concerning the dynamics of legal systems, the application of rules and exceptions, and the semantic indeterminacy of legal sources. Then two approaches to cope with conflicting information are presented: the preferred theories of Brewka, and the belief change functions of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson. The relations between those approaches are closely examined, and some aspects of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon (2005). Legal Case-Based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):93-131.score: 192.0
    In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is done through the use of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents to replicate the contrasting views involved in the actual decision. This reconstruction suggests that the reasoning involved can be separated into three distinct levels: factual and normative levels (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Scott Brewer (ed.) (1998). Moral Theory and Legal Reasoning. Garland Pub..score: 192.0
    The articles in this volume consider at what stage of legal reasoning should a judge or lawyer make specifically moral judgments.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. A. Soeteman (1995). Formal Aspects of Legal Reasoning. Argumentation 9 (5):731-746.score: 192.0
    This paper discusses the functions of deductive justification in ideal reconstructions of judicial reasoning. It departs from the point of judicial reasoning: explaining and justifying the judicial decision. It argues that deductive validity is not enough for good judicial argument. On the other hand, deductive justification is necessary, not only for easy cases but for hard cases as well. It draws some consequences for the concept of ‘jumps’ in legal reasoning and for the traditional distinction between (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Aldo Schiavello (2011). Neil MacCormick's Second Thoughts on Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. A Defence of the Original View. Ratio Juris 24 (2):140-155.score: 180.0
    This paper offers a diachronic reconstruction of MacCormick's theory of law and legal argumentation: In particular, two related points will be highlighted in which the difference between the perspective upheld in Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory and the later writings is particularly marked. The first point concerns MacCormick's gradual break with legal positivism, and more specifically the thesis that the implicit pretension to justice of law proves legal positivism false in all its different versions. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). On Universal Relevance in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (1):1 - 23.score: 180.0
    The purpose of this essay is to defend a claim that a certain consideration, which I call unworkability, is universally and necessarily relevant to legal reasoning. By that I mean that it is a consideration that must carry legal weight in the justification of some judicial decisions in every legal system in which (1) all disputed matters of law can be adjudicated, and (2) all judicial decisions are to be legally justified. Unworkability's necessary relevance has important (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Matti Ilmari Niemi (2010). Form and Substance in Legal Reasoning: Two Conceptions. Ratio Juris 23 (4):479-492.score: 180.0
    There are two possible ways to understand form and substance in legal reasoning. The first refers to the distinction between concepts and their applications, whereas the second concentrates on the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative reasons. These approaches refer to the formalistic and positivistic conceptions of the law, the latter being the author's point of departure. Nevertheless, they are both helpful means of analysis in legal interpretation. Interpretation is divided into formal and substantive justification. They have certain (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jürgen Hollatz (1999). Analogy Making in Legal Reasoning with Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):289-301.score: 180.0
    Analogy making from examples is a central task in intelligent system behavior. A lot of real world problems involve analogy making and generalization. Research investigates these questions by building computer models of human thinking concepts. These concepts can be divided into high level approaches as used in cognitive science and low level models as used in neural networks. Applications range over the spectrum of recognition, categorization and analogy reasoning. A major part of legal reasoning could be formally (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.score: 180.0
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Carole D. Hafner & Donald H. Berman (2002). The Role of Context in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: Teleological, Temporal, and Procedural. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):19-64.score: 180.0
    Computational models of relevance in case-based legal reasoning have traditionallybeen based on algorithms for comparing the facts and substantive legal issues of aprior case to those of a new case. In this paper we argue that robust models ofcase-based legal reasoning must also consider the broader social and jurisprudentialcontext in which legal precedents are decided. We analyze three aspects of legalcontext: the teleological relations that connect legal precedents to the socialvalues and policies they (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Peter Suber, Analogy Exercises for Teaching Legal Reasoning.score: 180.0
    Legal reasoning is not the same as the reasoning in mathematics or the physical sciences. It is like them. Specifying the likeness in more detail, and deciding whether there is more likeness than unlikeness, are the kinds of tasks that legal reasoning is better adapted to do than mathematical or scientific reasoning.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Andrew Stranieri, John Zeleznikow, Mark Gawler & Bryn Lewis (1999). A Hybrid Rule – Neural Approach for the Automation of Legal Reasoning in the Discretionary Domain of Family Law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):153-183.score: 180.0
    Few automated legal reasoning systems have been developed in domains of law in which a judicial decision maker has extensive discretion in the exercise of his or her powers. Discretionary domains challenge existing artificial intelligence paradigms because models of judicial reasoning are difficult, if not impossible to specify. We argue that judicial discretion adds to the characterisation of law as open textured in a way which has not been addressed by artificial intelligence and law researchers in depth. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.score: 180.0
    Reasoning with cases has been a primary focus of those working in AI and law who have attempted to model legal reasoning. In this paper we put forward a formal model of reasoning with cases which captures many of the insights from that previous work. We begin by stating our view of reasoning with cases as a process of constructing, evaluating and applying a theory. Central to our model is a view of the relationship between (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Fábio P. Shecaira (2014). Gardner on Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 33 (6):747-772.score: 180.0
    In Chapters 2, 3 and 7 of his new book, Law as a Leap of Faith, John Gardner provides the elements of an account of legal reasoning. It is on the basis of this account that Gardner defends or supports some of the most important theses of his book, viz. theses pertaining to how law can be made, to the relation between law and morality, and to the legitimacy of judicial law-making. A central element of Gardner’s account is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. David van Mill (1998). The Voice of the People in the Legal Reasoning of Cass Sunstein. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (4):152-156.score: 180.0
    Cass Sunstein, Free Markets and Social Justice. New York, Oxford University Press, 1996. Cass Sunstein, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York, Oxford University Press, 1997.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Ronald Dworkin (1998). Natural Law and Legal Reasoning. In Scott Brewer (ed.), Moral Theory and Legal Reasoning. Garland Pub..score: 180.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Neil MacCormick (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press.score: 180.0
    This book discusses theories of legal reasoning and provides an overall view of the rhetoric of legal justification. It shows how and why lawyers arguments can be rationally persuasive even though rarely, if ever, logically conclusive or compelling. It examines the role of "legal syllogism" and universality of legal reasoning, looking at arguments of consequentialism and principle, and concludes by questioning the infallibility of judges as lawmakers.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Ronald K. Stamper (1991). The Role of Semantics in Legal Expert Systems and Legal Reasoning. Ratio Juris 4 (2):219-244.score: 174.0
    The consensus among legal philosophers is probably that rule-based legal expert systems leave much to be desired as aids in legal decision-making. Why? What can we do about it? A bureaucrat administering some set of complex rules will ascertain the facts and apply the rules to them in order to discover their consequences for the case in hand. This process of deductive reasoning is characteristically bureaucratic.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Julie C. van Camp (2007). How Religion Co-Opts Morality in Legal Reasoning. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):241-251.score: 174.0
    Some recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Julie C. Van Camp (2007). How Religion Co-Opts Morality in Legal Reasoning: A Case Study of Lawrence V. Texas. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):241-251.score: 174.0
    Some recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Pauline Westerman (2010). Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.score: 168.0
    This article investigates the implications of goal-legislation for legal argumentation. In goal-regulation the legislator formulates the aims to be reached, leaving it to the norm-addressee to draft the necessary rules. On the basis of six types of hard cases, it is argued that in such a system there is hardly room for constructing a ratio legis. Legal interpretation is largely reduced to concretisation. This implies that legal argumentation tends to become highly dependent on expert (non-legal) knowledge.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Scott Brewer (ed.) (1998). Evolution and Revolution in Theories of Legal Reasoning: Nineteenth Century Through the Present. Garland Pub..score: 162.0
    This new collection illuminates and explains the political and moral importance in justifying the exercise of judicial power.Explores enduring questionsFocusing ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Audun Jøsang & Viggo A. Bondi (2001). Legal Reasoning with Subjective Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (4):289-315.score: 162.0
    Judges and jurors must make decisions in an environment of ignoranceand uncertainty for example by hearing statements of possibly unreliable ordishonest witnesses, assessing possibly doubtful or irrelevantevidence, and enduring attempts by the opponents to manipulate thejudge''s and the jurors'' perceptions and feelings. Three importantaspects of decision making in this environment are the quantificationof sufficient proof, the weighing of pieces of evidence, and therelevancy of evidence. This paper proposes a mathematical frameworkfor dealing with the two first aspects, namely the quantification ofproof (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Rosalind Ward Gwynne (2004). Logic, Rhetoric, and Legal Reasoning in the Qurʼān: God's Arguments. Routledgecurzon.score: 160.0
    Muslims have always used verses from the Qur'an to support opinions on law, theology, or life in general, but almost no attention has been paid to how the Qur'an presents its own precepts as conclusions proceeding from reasoned arguments. Whether it is a question of God's powers of creation, the rationale for his acts, or how people are to think clearly about their lives and fates, Muslims have so internalized Qur'anic patterns of reasoning that many will assert that the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):355 - 374.score: 156.0
    Many contemporary philosophers of law agree that a necessary condition for a decision to be legally justified, even in a hard case, is that it coheres with established law. Some, namely Sartorius and Dworkin, have gone beyond that relatively uncontroversial claim and described the role of coherence in legal justification as analogous to its role in moral and scientific justification, on contemporary theories. In this, I argue, they are mistaken. Specifically, coherence in legal justification is sometimes specific to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Hannu Tapani Klami, Johanna Sorvetulla & Minna Hatakka (1991). Evidence and Legal Reasoning: On the Intertwinement of the Probable and the Reasonable. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 10 (1):73 - 107.score: 156.0
    The facts to be proven in a lawsuit can be more or less probable. But the recognition of the relevant facts may require discretion or evaluative operations; moreover, a just and equitable interpretation of a contract may depend on what the contracting parties knew about the intentions of each other. Can, e.g., negligence be more or less probable? Can Ought be proven? There is, however, a structural similarity between legal interpretation and the evalution of evidence and not only an (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Jacky Legrand (1999). Some Guidelines for Fuzzy Sets Application in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):235-257.score: 156.0
    As an introduction to our work, we emphasize the parallel interpretation of abstract tools and the concepts of undetermined and vague information. Imprecision, uncertainty and their relationships are inspected. Suitable interpretations of the fuzzy sets theory are applied to legal phenomena in an attempt to clearly circumscribe the possible applications of the theory. The fundamental notion of reference sets is examined in detail, hence highlighting their importance. A systematic and combinatorial classification of the relevant subsets of the legal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Lothar Philipps & Giovanni Sartor (1999). Introduction: From Legal Theories to Neural Networks and Fuzzy Reasoning. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):115-128.score: 156.0
    Computational approaches to the law have frequently been characterized as being formalistic implementations of the syllogistic model of legal cognition: using insufficient or contradictory data, making analogies, learning through examples and experiences, applying vague and imprecise standards. We argue that, on the contrary, studies on neural networks and fuzzy reasoning show how AI & law research can go beyond syllogism, and, in doing that, can provide substantial contributions to the law.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter (1993). The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.score: 156.0
    In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work integrates rule based and case based reasoning with intelligent information retrieval.When using the case based reasoning methodology, or in our case the specialisation of case based retrieval, we need to be aware of how to retrieve relevant experience. Our research, in the legal domain, specifies an approach to the retrieval problem which relies heavily on an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Donald H. Berman & Carole D. Hafner (1988). Obstacles to the Development of Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning. In Charles Walter (ed.), Computer power and legal language: The use of computational models in linguistics, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in the law. Quorum Books.score: 156.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. William N. R. Lucy (1994). Criticizing and Constructing Accounts of Legal Reasoning. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 14 (3):303-333.score: 156.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Vern R. Walker, Nathaniel Carie, Courtney C. DeWitt & Eric Lesh (2011). A Framework for the Extraction and Modeling of Fact-Finding Reasoning From Legal Decisions: Lessons From the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (4):291-331.score: 156.0
    This article describes the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus, a collection of legal decisions awarding or denying compensation for health injuries allegedly due to vaccinations, together with models of the logical structure of the reasoning of the factfinders in those cases. This unique corpus provides useful data for formal and informal logic theory, for natural-language research in linguistics, and for artificial intelligence research. More importantly, the article discusses lessons learned from developing protocols for manually extracting the logical structure and generating (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Richard Warner (2005). Adjudication and Legal Reasoning. In Martin P. Golding & William A. Edmundson (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell Pub.. 259--270.score: 156.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Aulis Aarnio & Neil MacCormick (eds.) (1958/1992). Legal Reasoning. New York University Press, Reference Collection.score: 156.0
    This Major Reference series brings together a wide range of key international articles in law and legal theory. Many of these essays are not readily accessible, and their presentation in these volumes will provide a vital new resource for both research and teaching. Each volume is edited by leading international authorities who explain the significance and context of articles in an informative and complete introduction.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Phoebe C. Ellsworth (2005). Legal Reasoning. In K. Holyoak & B. Morrison (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge Univ Pr. 685--704.score: 156.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Joanna Jemielniak (2002). Just Interpretation: The Status of Legal Reasoning in the Continental Legal Tradition. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 15 (4):325-335.score: 156.0
    The following text discusses an issueof legal interpretation status in continentalsystem of law. Exploring a metaphor of theinterpretation as a translation, it emphasizesits creative aspect, which has been deniedoften in modern times. Reminding the Romanorigins of contemporary continental legalsystems, it uses historical arguments to accentthe intrinsically inventive character of legalinterpretation.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Aleksander Peczenik (1993). Why Shall Legal Reasoning Be Coherent? In K. B. Agrawal & R. K. Raizada (eds.), Sociological Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy: Random Thoughts On. University Book House.score: 156.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. J. E. Penner (2003). Legal Reasoning and the Authority of Law. In Lukas H. Meyer, Stanley L. Paulson & Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge (eds.), Rights, Culture, and the Law: Themes From the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford University Press. 71--97.score: 156.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Giovanni Sartor (2012). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.score: 156.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Peter Suber, Legal Reasoning After Post-Modern Critiques of Reason [Note 1].score: 152.0
    These critiques and the ways of thinking made possible in their wake tend to be called post-modern, a term which is vague and even a little irritating. It would be more precise and descriptive to speak instead of post- Enlightenment critiques of reason. Hume is arguably the first post-Enlightenment thinker, and after Hume these critiques of reason developed further in Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche, and were then taken up by many lesser, 20th century thinkers. If the Enlightenment was the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Julie Dickson, Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000