An Introduction to Legal Reasoning.¶
Levi, E. H. (1948). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Law Review, 15(3), 501-574.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Adjudication (Dispute Resolution)
- First, the documented decision—reasoned judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law—educates the broader community about how rules are interpreted and what conduct is acceptable, a process of reasoning by example from prior holdings to new facts that Levi (1949) showed is the central mechanism through which case law accumulates and transmits legal knowledge.
This sourceArgues common-law adjudication is reasoning by example from case to case, with the craft of distinguishing material from immaterial facts at its center — supports the knowledge-transfer-by-example claim (D49-007).
- First, the documented decision—reasoned judgment with findings of fact and conclusions of law—educates the broader community about how rules are interpreted and what conduct is acceptable, a process of reasoning by example from prior holdings to new facts that Levi (1949) showed is the central mechanism through which case law accumulates and transmits legal knowledge.
- Develops-From Relation
- Precedent (Stare Decisis)
- The craft of precedent is the craft of distinguishing cases, as Levi (1949) lays out in his canonical account of legal reasoning by example.
This sourceCanonical short treatise on legal reasoning by example: argues that the basic pattern of common-law adjudication is reasoning from case to case by analogy, with the craft of distinguishing material from immaterial facts at the center.
- The craft of precedent is the craft of distinguishing cases, as Levi (1949) lays out in his canonical account of legal reasoning by example.
Mechanisms¶
- Material-Fact Comparison Matrix
- It is a working instance of reasoning by analogy in the tradition Edward Levi described, where the whole game is deciding which similarities and differences the controlling rule makes count.
This sourceDescribes legal reasoning by analogy as comparing cases, identifying similarities and differences, and developing the governing rule through those comparisons.
- It is a working instance of reasoning by analogy in the tradition Edward Levi described, where the whole game is deciding which similarities and differences the controlling rule makes count.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 4 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:8ffe1ee09b64 · see in the full table