Oxford University Press (2005)
AbstractThis 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.
Similar books and articles
Lon Fuller and the Moral Value of the Rule of Law.Colleen Murphy - 2004 - Law and Philosophy 24 (3):239-262.
Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited.Fernando Atria - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (5):537-577.
Law as Rule and Principle: Problems of Legal Philosophy.Theodore M. Benditt - 1978 - Stanford University Press.
The Rules of Law in the Reform of Legal Education: Teaching the Legal Mind in Japanese Law Schools.James R. Maxeiner - unknown
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
An Arugmentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpertation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2018 - Law and Philosophy 37 (1):69-115.
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):61-79.
Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
References found in this work
No references found.