Legal Issue Argument
Identify and indicate the legal conclusion you want the court to reach, but it`s not that simple. Textual laws are rare. The terms of the text must be interpreted. Their true meaning must be determined in the context of the present case. Sometimes the meaning may be obvious or undisputed, but often it is not. The Irish encroachment rule, for example, contains a number of vague or uncertain terms. What does it mean to use force “directly or indirectly”? Hitting someone in the face is certainly direct violence, but what happens if you throw water in their eyes? Is it an indirect force? Think about it, what is “violence” anyway? The majority judgment in that case ruled that the sentence was ambiguous given the circumstances of the case. You had to look beyond the simple meaning of the text and look at Soper/Young`s intentions when they signed the agreement to find out what it really meant. When you did, they argued that the meaning was clear: Gertrude (the second “wife”) was the intended beneficiary, not Adeline. This judgment was challenged by a minority judgment, which argued that it went against the clear meaning of the text. There is some logic to the minority judgment, but it is a complicated linguistic issue. In any event, the majority judgment remains a good example of a deliberate argument used to justify the application of a particular rule of law – in this case, a treaty rule – to a case. Arguments based on custom or tradition take the following form: the decision or decision is the court`s response to a question submitted to it for an answer by the parties concerned or asked by the court itself in its own reading of the case.
There are narrow procedural sets, e.g. “case quashed and withdrawn”, broader substantive backgrounds dealing with the interpretation of the constitution, laws or legal doctrines. If the questions are formulated precisely, the conclusions may be given by a simple “yes” or “no” answer or by brief explanations drawn from the language of the court. * There are legal theorists who claim that this is false. But in my experience, they offer very technical analyses of case-based thinking that differ from how lawyers actually think it works in practice. It is easier and, in my opinion, more accurate to regard precedents as some kind of analogous argument. In this model, the first sentence identifies the relevant legal argument, while the second applies the law to the facts of the case. Constitutional cases often involve several issues, some of which are of interest only to litigants and lawyers, others of general and lasting importance to citizens and public servants.
Be sure to include both. These sample paragraphs show how a student was able to identify legal issues and apply them to the facts of the law. In my view, the legal arguments take a similar conditional syllogistic form. There is a legal regulation that states that if certain conditions are met, certain legal consequences ensue. This is the main premise of legal reasoning. Then there are a number of facts to which this rule may apply. This is the subordinate premise of the legal argument. If you apply the rule to the facts, you will get a conclusion. Strategy-based arguments have two important steps. The first is an examination of the likely consequences or outcomes of applying a particular rule to the facts of the case (again, there tends to be initial agreement on the facts, although it is not integral to this type of reasoning as to a previous argument). The second is the use of an evaluative or normative theory to evaluate these consequences or outcomes. This evaluative theory can be drawn from several sources: economic theory, moral theory and religious tradition are among the most commonly used.
I will not go into details. As Huhn points out in his discussion, all textual arguments must be supported by some kind of textual analysis, that is, a premise that supports a particular interpretation of the rule. This means that textual arguments tend to take the following general form: there is only one way to defend a previous argument, and that is through the analogous reasoning process, that is, to carefully examine the facts of each case, establish the relevant similarities and justify the application of the same rule. Since no two cases are perfectly identical, it will always be an imperfect exercise, and therefore similar arguments are often questionable. Huhn suggests that there are six main ways to attack such arguments: At this point, the name of the case changed to Laird v. Tatum: Laird and his associates were now the plaintiffs, and Tatum and his colleagues were the defendants. Several religious groups and a group of former intelligence officers were allowed to file briefs (written arguments) on behalf of the interviewees in order to convince the court to make a decision that was favourable to them. Each of these groups was called amicus curiae or “friend of the court.” There are three ways to attack a custom argument: As you prepare for trial, prepare your arguments and what you will say in court.
It is a good idea to prepare your opening statement, questions to witnesses and closing statements in advance. We discuss this in detail. The following sample paragraphs show the elements you need to consider to write a successful legal argument. Here is an example of habit-based reasoning in contract law. This is the Irish case of Carroll v. Dublin Bus. He was a bus driver who had been unemployed for some time due to illness. He returned to work and was given a normal bus route. He denied this claim on the grounds that it was common on board Dublin Bus for drivers who return to work after a period of illness to be offered an `easy` or `rehabilitative` route before returning to a normal work routine. The court agreed that this was indeed a custom within Dublin Bus and had therefore succeeded. The court decided that this custom should be included in the terms of his employment contract. In abstract form, all legal arguments look like this: Simple, right? Unfortunately, this is not the case.
While this basic argument is at the heart of all disputes, it is not the totality of these disputes. The problem is that the legal rules do not appear and do not apply to certain cases. There are many possible legal rules that could apply to a particular issue. And there are many limitations and exceptions to the legal rules. You need to argue in favor of the rules themselves and show why a particular rule (or important premise) should apply to a particular case. Moreover, the facts of the case do not establish themselves. They, too, have to argue, and the law introduces a formalized procedure to establish facts, at least when a case is brought before the courts. Here is an example.
The English case of Re A (Conjoin Twins) is remarkable for several reasons. The facts are known. A pair of twins (named Jodie and Mary in this case) were born in August 2000. Jodie was the stronger of the two. Mary was only kept alive by a common artery she shared with Jodie. If they stayed connected, they would almost certainly die. If she were separated, Jodie would live and Mary would die. The doctors wanted to separate them. The parents objected. The case was referred back to court to determine whether doctors were legally permitted to proceed with the separation. You couldn`t accept that.
One might think that the cases are more similar than the judges suggest, or that they struggle to find structural differences to support sectarian or intolerant views.
