Primer on Legal Reasoning

Michael Evan Gold holds a BA from the University of California at Berkeley and a JD from the Stanford Law School. He is presently Associate Professor of Labor Relations, Law, and History in the ILR School at Cornell University. He is the author of A Dialogue on Comparable Worth, An Introduction to Labor Law, and An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination.

"A Primer on Legal Reasoning is impressive. Full of high caliber examples and exercises, there is no question that this book will teach students how to think like lawyers: rigorously, skeptically, and analytically."

• Introduction1. IssuesI. DefinitionsII. Creation of IssuesIII. Resolution of IssuesA. Frame the Issue in the DisputeB. Find the Facts That Pertain to the IssueC. Identify and Interpret, or if Necessary Create, theAuthority That Governs the IssueD. Apply Law to Fact (i.e. use the authority to determine the legal consequences of the facts of the dispute)IV. Identifying IssuesA. Identifying Issues in DocumentsThe College DailyWhen Is an Offer Accepted?B. Identifying Issues in FactsThe Coconut CasesV. ReviewSally's CaseThe Case of the Research PapersVI. References2. Identifying the Governing Rule of LawI. Definition of a Rule of LawII. Identifying an Existing Rule of LawUsing PrecedentsIdentifying the Governing Rule of Law Using Authoritative TextsTwo Cases of Second ThoughtsDiallo's CaseNiner's CasePackard Motor Car CompanyIII. ReviewIV. References3. Levels of AbstractionI. Levels of Abstraction: The Basic IdeaII. The Definition of "Level of Abstraction"A. Unrelated Issues and Levels of AbstractionB. Related Issues and Levels of AbstractionBen and Gerrie's CaseIII. Why the Level of Abstraction MattersGuenevere v. ArthurIV. ReviewMary's CaseWimp v. BullyThe SpatV. References4. DeductionI. In GeneralA. SyllogismsB. EnthymemesII. Categorical Syllogisms and Quasi SyllogismsA. The Major and Minor Premises Are Affirmative1. The Valid Form2. The Fallacy of the Undistributed MiddleB. The Major Premise Is Affirmative and the Minor Premise Is Negative1. The Valid Form2. The Fallacy of the Illicit MajorIII. Hypothetical SyllogismsA. Modus Ponens1. The Valid Form2. The Fallacy of Denying the AntecedentB. Modus Tollens1. The Valid Form2. The Fallacy of Affirming the ConsequentIV. The Soundness of SyllogismsV. Moral Syllogisms and Legal SyllogismsA. Moral SyllogismsB. Legal SyllogismsWillie Sutton's CaseVI. The Value of SyllogismsVII. Review5. InductionI. Inductive GeneralizationsA. The Nature of InductionB. Probability of ConclusionsC. Analysis of Arguments in the Form of InductiveGeneralizationD. Some Errors Associated with Inductive Generalization1. Hasty Generalization2. Unrepresentative Sample3. Vivid Counterexample4. Argument Ad Hominem5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc6. Failure to Falsify Alternative HypothesesExcerpt from the Phaedo by PlatoII. Statistical SyllogismsA. The Nature of a Statistical SyllogismB. The Force of a Statistical SyllogismC. Statistical Syllogisms in Ordinary SpeechIII. Practical SyllogismsIV. ReviewV. References6. Arguments in GeneralI. Definition of an ArgumentII. Elements of an ArgumentShould Use of Marijuana Be Legal?Katzenjammer for CongressIII. Recognizing ArgumentsIV. Incomplete ArgumentsV. Issues, Arguments, and RhetoricVI. Review7. Arguments Classified by FunctionI. Arguments as to the Issue in a CaseClinics v. HospitalsII. Arguments as to the FactsIII. Arguments as to the LawA. Arguments as to Which Authority Governs the CaseHere v. ThereRound v. AboutB. Arguments as to How to Interpret the Governing AuthorityScarpia v. SkyPuss v. BootsIV. Arguments Applying Law to FactDon Juan in HellV. ReviewJefferson Standard Broadcasting CompanyVI. References8. Arguments Based on EvidenceI. Varieties of EvidenceII. Uses of Evidence9. Policy ArgumentsI. The Nature of Policy ArgumentsA. Normative Claims1. Values2. Varieties of Arguments about Values3. Sources of ValuesB. Assertions of Fact1. Retrospective and Prospective Facts2. Sources of Assertions of FactII. Uses of Policy ArgumentsLockoutsEmployees or Independent Contractors?III. Evaluating Policy ArgumentsThe Case of the Bargaining OrderIV. ReviewV. References10. Doctrinal ArgumentsI. Varieties of AuthorityA. Binding AuthoritiesB. Advisory AuthoritiesII. Uses of AuthorityPeople v. LedfootIII. Varieties of Doctrinal ArgumentIV. ReviewSure-Tan v. National Labor Relations BoardV. References11. Analogies and Precedents: The Structure and Criteria for Evaluation of Legal AnalogiesI. Analogies, Similes, and MetaphorsA. The Nature of AnalogiesB. The Danger of AnalogiesAspasiaII. The Legal AnalogyA. Differences between an Ordinary Analogy and a Legal AnalogyB. The Structure of a Legal AnalogyThe Captain's AnalogyC. Truncated Analogies1. Failure to Demonstrate That the Facts of the Precedent Are Similar to the Facts of the Case at BarThe Case of Illegal QuestionsThe "Phantom Analogy"The Seat Belt Cases2. Failure to Demonstrate That the RationaleChurch of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesThe Case of Gay Marriage3. Legal Citations as Truncated AnalogiesThe Case of the Second BiteD. The Uses of Analogies1. Using an Analogy to Identify the IssueFord Motor Company v. National Labor Relations BoardRelations Board2. Using an Analogy to Find the Facts3. Using an Analogy to Identify and Interpret the Governing Rule of LawThe Taggers' Cases4. Using an Analogy to Apply Law to FactFord Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board (continued)E. Four Criteria for Evaluating Analogies1. The Precedent Must Be Authoritative; If the Precedent Can Be Vitiated, the Analogy Fails2. The Legally Significant Facts of the Precedent and the Case at Bar Must Be Analogous in the Important Ways; If the Case at Bar Can Be Distinguished from the Precedent (that is, if the legally significant facts of the case at bar and the precedentdiffer), the Analogy Fails3. The Analogy Must Be Relevant to the Issue at Hand4. No Other Analogy May Be More ConvincingThomas the MoverIII. ReviewThe Fine Print CasesReferences12. Distinctions: Distinguishing Precedents, Disanalogies, and Precedents and Levels of AbstractionThe Musician's CaseI. The Elements of a DistinctionA. Difference(s) of Fact between the Precedent and the Case at BarB. The Importance of the Difference(s) of Fact1. Some Differences Do Not MatterSeth's Case: An Unsuccessful Distinction2. Merely Identifying Difference(s) of Fact Does Not Distinguish a Precedent from a Case at Bar: The Importance of the Difference(s)of Fact Must Be ExplainedA Brick and a Rose PetalDaniela's Case: A Successful DistinctionSeymour's CaseC. The ConclusionII. The Uses of DistinctionsIII. DisanalogiesIV. Distinctions and Levels of AbstractionV. Seymour's Case ExpandedShady Sam v. EsmeSeymour v. Hard Luck HankVI. ReviewThe War between the UnionsThe Case of the Supervisor's QuestionsYoung Tom's CaseThe Fine Print Cases13. Holding and DictumI. DefinitionsII. Effect of a HoldingIII. The Scope or Meaning of a HoldingUnion Access to Company PropertyIV. References14. Reductios ad AbsurdumI. The Elements of a Reductio ad AbsurdumThe Paradox of the ArrowThe Paradox of Achilles and the TortoiseThe Paradox of the Minimum WageII. The Criteria of a Sound Reductio ad AbsurdumIII. Reductios ad Absurdum in LawA. Reductios and PrecedentsB. Reductios and Fact FindingThe Philosopher's ReductioC. Reductios and Policy ArgumentsIV. ReviewV. References15. Subjective and Objective StandardsI. StandardsII. Subjective StandardsIII. Objective StandardsIV. Mixed Standards and EvidenceV. Subjective versus Objective StandardsThe One-Year MisunderstandingVI. ReviewThe House of Tantalus16. Interpreting StatutesI. SourcesA. Text of the StatuteB. Purpose of the StatuteC. Legislative History of the StatuteD. Scholarly PublicationsE. Public PolicyCannery RowF. Administrative InterpretationsG. PrecedentII. PrinciplesA. The Principle of MeaningfulnessDuplex v. DeeringB. The Principle of Wholeness1. Within One Statute2. Between StatutesIII. The Effect of Precedents on the Meaning of StatutesIV. References17. Prima Facie Case, Affi rmative Defense, Burden of ProofI. Prima Facie CaseA. The Basic IdeaB. Two Meanings of "Prima Facie Case"Proving BatteryII. DefensesA. Destruction of the Plaintiff's Prima Facie CaseB. Affirmative DefenseIII. Burden of ProofA. Burden of Persuasion1. Who Carries the Burden of Persuasion?2. How Heavy Is the Burden of Persuasion?3. What Happens If a Party Fails to Carry the Burden of Persuasion?B. Burden of ProductionIV. Prima Facie Case + Affirmative Defense = Rule of LawV. ReviewBattery on a BarstoolThe Two-TimerVI. References18. Application of Law to FactI. Application of Law to Fact Operates Issue by IssueThe RaidII. Direct Application of Law to FactA. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Force of LogicCaroline's CaseTommy's CaseB. Direct Application of Law to Fact by Use of JudgmentThe CoachAdora's CaseAmanda's CaseBen-El's CaseIII. Application of Law to Fact Using PrecedentA. Application of Law to Fact Using Binding PrecedentsThe Honor Society CasesHarry the HarrierB. Application of Law to Fact Using Guiding PrecedentsThe Battle of the SexesIV. ReviewDipaboli's CaseV. References19. A Model of Legal ArgumentI. Neither a Quasi Syllogism nor a Statistical Syllogism Can Capture a Legal ArgumentShimul's CaseII. A Model of Legal ArgumentA. Toulmin's ModelB. Our Revision of Toulmin's Model1. Issues as to the IssueJanus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees2. Issues of Fact3. Issues of Law4. Issues of Application of Law to FactIII. The Value of the ModelIV. ReviewV. ReferencesAnswers