DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Intepretation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Intepretation Florida State University Law Review Volume 36 Issue 2 Article 1 2009 Case Intepretation Shawn J. Bayern [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shawn J. Bayern, Case Intepretation, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2009) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol36/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW CASE INTERPRETATION Shawn J. Bayern VOLUME 36 WINTER 2009 NUMBER 2 Recommended citation: Shawn J. Bayern, Case Interpretation, 36 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 126 (2009). CASE INTERPRETATION SHAWN J. BAYERN* ABSTRACT This Article develops an approach to constructing the meaning of prior court cases that is more helpful than formalistic, conventional distinctions between concepts like “holdings” and “dicta.” Instead of trying to classify judicial announcements into fixed categories, courts should engage in a broader interpretive inquiry when confronting prior cases. Determining what a judicial opinion stands for requires determining the intent that motivated the opinion, as carefully un- derstood in light of the factual and argumentative context that gave rise to it. Under this view of precedent, binding common law arises in large part from principles explicated after considering facts. Viewing precedent in this way indicates a generally unrecognized danger from fact-unbound precedents—that is, legal rulings by courts that cannot sensibly be tied to the facts of particular cases. Such unbound prece- dents arise chiefly in the context of statutory interpretation. This Ar- ticle suggests several solutions to this problem, including a statutory- interpretation-avoidance maxim and a novel proposal that courts should not consider themselves obliged in all cases to answer the legal questions that underlie parties’ disputes. I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 126 II. PRECEDENT AS CONSTRUCTION OF INTENT ....................................................... 128 A. Alternate Interpretive Approaches ............................................................. 128 1. Minimalism ......................................................................................... 128 2. Result-Orientation ............................................................................... 131 3. Judicial Announcements of the Law ................................................... 132 B. Precedent as Interpretation ........................................................................ 132 1. The Role of Interpretation .................................................................... 132 2. A Continuum of Authority ................................................................... 138 C. A Plausible View ........................................................................................ 143 D. Normative Considerations ......................................................................... 146 1. Judicial Restraint and the Separation of Powers ............................... 147 (a) Power and Dicta ............................................................................ 147 (b) Constitutional Limitations ............................................................ 151 2. Foresight and Care .............................................................................. 155 3. Judicial Economy and Generativity .................................................... 160 (a) Management of Lower Courts ....................................................... 160 (b) Generation of Rules ....................................................................... 163 4. Clarity, Honesty, and Administrability ............................................... 164 * Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Duke Law School; BS, Yale University; JD, UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). I am grateful to George Christie, Martin Golding, Tara Grove, Harris Hartz, Augustine Kim, Sapna Kumar, Jeff Powell, Jed Purdy, Jesse So- lomon, Will Trachman, and Zephyr Teachout for helpful comments. 126 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36:125 III. FACT-BOUND AND FACT-UNBOUND PRECEDENTS ............................................. 167 A. The Importance of Facts in the Common Law ........................................... 168 1. Fact-Bound Expansion and Narrowing of Judicial Announcements . 168 2. Facts and Statutory Interpretation...................................................... 169 B. Reducing the Impact of Fact-Unbound Precedents .................................... 171 1. A Maxim to Avoid Unnecessary Statutory Interpretation (in Fact- Unbound Cases) ................................................................................... 171 2. A Refusal to Decide Questions of Law ................................................. 172 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 174 I. INTRODUCTION A feature of court opinions is so obvious that it is rarely stated: opinions are textual documents, and like statutes and contracts, they have a purpose and a particular factual context. Determining what a court opinion means—that is, what law it helps create—is essentially a matter of case interpretation, analogous in many ways to statutory interpretation or contract interpretation. Courts and commentators have developed terminology and concepts like “holding” and “dictum” that guide our interpretation of judicial documents. But like many concepts, these guidelines can obscure the problem at hand if they are followed too formalistically. Fundamentally, a court’s endeavor in interpreting cases is broader than this terminology and the sur- rounding doctrines suggest. Others have recognized this,1 but for whatever reasons the recognition always fades, and more formalist views come again to limit both our understanding of prior cases and our imagination about what options courts have in deciding new ones. This Article explores several issues related to case interpretation. It first sets out to develop a simple, though in some ways novel, theory of precedent that serves as a better guide to interpreting cases than do the still-conventional notions of holding, dictum, and ratio decidendi. In short, cases should be taken to stand for what they were intended to stand for, as carefully interpreted in view of the knowledge that they were produced in a limited factual and argu- mentative context. Just like statutes, contracts, and other written documents that have legal effects, opinions have an intent, and de- termining the meaning of a case requires a determination of this in- tent. Under the view I set out, a statement in an opinion is not nec- essarily or exclusively either holding or dictum; any statement can serve as precedent for future cases given the right factual and argu- mentative context. To put this differently, courts are not formally or 1. See, e.g., MELVIN ARON EISENBERG, THE NATURE OF THE COMMON LAW 52-55 (1988); KARL N. LLEWELLYN, THE COMMON LAW TRADITION: DECIDING APPEALS 103 (1996) (“[A] ruling no longer needs the credentials of a ‘holding’ in order to be available for unqua- lified reliance and use.”). 2009] CASE INTERPRETATION 127 practically limited to classifying a statement as holding or dictum in the abstract. Having developed this view of precedent, this Article next consid- ers several questions in its light. Most significantly, it attempts to show that there are common but widely unperceived dangers not from dicta but from fact-unbound precedents—that is, judicial an- nouncements of legal decisions that have little to do with the factual context that gave rise to them. This is a danger even if the pro- nouncement was a “holding” or was logically necessary to resolve a question that was before a court. Some classes of issues, including many ordinary questions of statutory interpretation, lend themselves to this sort of fact-unbound decision. This Article describes the dan- ger of fact-unbound decisions and sets forth a few potential solutions. Some of these solutions may seem like radical changes to the way courts function; for instance, I believe courts appropriately have less of a duty than they think they do to provide definitive resolutions to legal questions that the parties before them have raised. But, there are also some relatively mundane solutions that will go a long way to reduce the generation and impact of bad law. Part II spells out my view of precedent and contrasts it with al- ternative views. Note that I am not aiming to address questions con- cerning the appropriate strength of precedent—for instance, when courts should overrule it or what the precise relationship between higher courts and lower courts should be.2 I also do not mean to sug- gest that courts are limited to the intent of prior cases in developing law. Instead, my goal is to describe how courts should, and for the most part do, interpret prior court opinions and figure out what they stand for.3 This activity is much broader and less formalistic than those trained to look for holdings and dicta tend to imagine. 2. I do, however, think that it makes sense to talk of precedent even though it can be overruled. Edward Levi appears to have disagreed. See EDWARD H. LEVI, AN INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL REASONING 2 (1949) (“Where
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, and Vote Counts in the U.S
    Akron Law Review Volume 53 Issue 3 Federal Appellate Issue Article 2 2019 Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, and Vote Counts in the U.S. Supreme Court: Boon or Bane? (A Response to Professors Penrose and Sherry) Joan Steinman Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Litigation Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Steinman, Joan (2019) "Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, and Vote Counts in the U.S. Supreme Court: Boon or Bane? (A Response to Professors Penrose and Sherry)," Akron Law Review: Vol. 53 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol53/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Steinman: Response to Penrose and Sherry SIGNED OPINIONS, CONCURRENCES, DISSENTS, AND VOTE COUNTS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: BOON OR BANE? (A RESPONSE TO PROFESSORS PENROSE AND SHERRY) Joan Steinman* I. Response to Professor Penrose .................................. 526 II. Response to Professor Sherry .................................... 543 A. A Summary of Professor Sherry’s Arguments, and Preliminary Responses ........................................ 543 B. Rejoinders to Professor Sherry’s Arguments ...... 548 1. With Respect to the First Amendment .........
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Interpretation--In the Classroom and in the Courtroom
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1983 Statutory Interpretation--in the Classroom and in the Courtroom Richard A. Posner Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Posner, "Statutory Interpretation--in the Classroom and in the Courtroom," 50 University of Chicago Law Review 800 (1983). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Statutory Interpretation-in the Classroom and in the Courtroom Richard A. Posnerf This paper continues a discussion begun in an earlier paper in this journal.1 That paper dealt primarily with the implications for statutory interpretation of the interest-group theory of legislation, recently revivified by economists; it also dealt with constitutional interpretation. This paper focuses on two topics omitted in the earlier one: the need for better instruction in legislation in the law schools and the vacuity of the standard guideposts to reading stat- utes-the "canons of construction." The topics turn out to be re- lated. The last part of the paper contains a positive proposal on how to interpret statutes. I. THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF LEGISLATION It has been almost fifty years since James Landis complained that academic lawyers did not study legislation in a scientific (i.e., rigorous, systematic) spirit,' and the situation is unchanged. There are countless studies, many of high distinction, of particular stat- utes, but they are not guided by any overall theory of legislation, and most academic lawyers, like most judges and practicing law- yers, would consider it otiose, impractical, and pretentious to try to develop one.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday, June 6, 2021
    SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 2021 2:45 ─ 3 p.m. Welcome & Opening Greeting Magnolia, Main Level Chief Justice John L. Weimer • Louisiana Supreme Court • New Orleans Alainna R. Mire • LSBA President; Alexandria City Attorney’s Office • Alexandria Hon. Susan M. Chehardy • LJC President; 5th Circuit Court of Appeal • Gretna Hon. Kirk A. Williams LJC President-Elect and Conference Chair 3 ─ 3:10 p.m. Announcements of Upcoming Summer School Sessions & Events H. Minor Pipes III • Pipes Miles Beckman • New Orleans 3:10 ─ 4:10 p.m. Be the Light: The Importance of Human Connection in the Practice of Law (1 credit; Professionalism) Magnolia, Main Level R. Ashby Pate • Lightfoot, Franklin & White • Birmingham, AL 4:20 ─ 5:20 p.m. “Solitary: Unbroken by Four Decades in Solitary Confinement. My Story of Transformation and Hope” ⸺ A conversation with Albert Woodfox and his attorney, George Kendall (1 credit) Magnolia, Main Level George H. Kendall • Squire Patton Boggs • New York, NY Albert Woodfox • New Orleans 5:30 ─ 6:30 p.m. Impeachment and Political Investigations (1 credit) Magnolia, Main Level Ross Garber • Tulane University Law School • New Orleans 6:30 ─ 7:30 p.m. Opening Reception in Exhibit Hall (open to all registrants) Magnolia, Main Level 1 Updated 5/24/2021 MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021 8 ─ 9 a.m. On the Precipice: Bet the Company Litigation ⸺ Are We Really Going to Trial? (1 credit) Magnolia, Main Level Moderator: Richard C. Stanley • Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford • New Orleans Panelists: Kent A. Lambert • Baker, Donelson • New Orleans Stephen J. Herman • Herman, Herman & Katz • New Orleans Phillip A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to Bush V. Gore: the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion, 79 Neb
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 79 | Issue 3 Article 2 2000 The Road to Bush v. Gore: The iH story of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion Laura K. Ray Widener Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Laura K. Ray, The Road to Bush v. Gore: The History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion, 79 Neb. L. Rev. (2000) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol79/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Laura Krugman Ray* The Road to Bush v. Gore:' The History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 518 II. The History of the Per Curiam Opinion as a Form of Judicial Expression ................................... 521 A. The Background: An Instrument of Consensus ..... 521 B. The Transformation: The Decline of Consensus .... 524 III. The Per Curiam and the Idea of Individualism ........ 530 A. The Emergence of the Separate Voice .............. 530 B. The Pursuit of Consensus ..................... 533 IV. The Per Curiam as a Strategic Device ................. 536 A. Achieving Efficiency ............................... 537 B. Working by Indirection ............................ 538 C. Creating New Law ................................ 541 D. Using Procedure as a Screen ...................... 548 E. Disciplining Courts and Litigants .................. 549 V. The Per Curiam and Individual Expression ............ 550 A. The Minimalist Opinion and Efficiency: New York Times Co.
    [Show full text]
  • What's an Opinion For? James Boyd Whitet
    JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING What's an Opinion For? James Boyd Whitet The question the papers in this Special Issue address is whether it matters how judicial opinions are written, and if so why. My hope here is to suggest a way of elaborating the ques- tion that may provide the reader with a useful point of departure for reading the more extensive papers that follow. It might help, to begin with, if we were to imagine a legal world without the judicial opinion at all. Suppose that we had a system designed by one who truly believed that the law really "is what officials do about disputes," as Karl Llewellyn used to say, and nothing else. We might have statutes and a constitution and judges appointed to resolve disputes arising under them, but the judges would never explain themselves, for it would be irrelevant for them to do so: the law would be what they did, not what they said. They would simply decide the cases, issuing orders reflect- ing their judgment. Their judgments might be appealed, but an appellate court would simply affirm or reverse, in the latter case substituting its judgment for that of the lower court, but never issuing an opinion explaining or justifying its decision. What would life in such a regime be like? One's first reaction might be to think that in such a system there would be no precedent, no argument from precedent, and in this sense no law: every question would be argued as an original matter, without the advantage of the collective experience over time that the judicial opinion provides.
    [Show full text]
  • The Line Between Legal Error and Judicial Misconduct: Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability Cynthia Gray
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 32 | Issue 4 Article 11 2004 The Line Between Legal Error and Judicial Misconduct: Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability Cynthia Gray Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gray, Cynthia (2004) "The Line Between Legal Error and Judicial Misconduct: Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 32: Iss. 4, Article 11. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol32/iss4/11 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gray: The Line Between Legal Error and Judicial Misconduct: Balancing J THE LINE BETWEEN LEGAL ERROR AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT: BALANCING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Cynthia Gray* Most of the complaints filed with state judicial conduct commissions-generally more than ninety percent-are dismissed every year.' Some dismissed complaints do not allege a violation of the code of judicial conduct. For example, litigants sometimes complain that a judge did not return telephone calls because they do not understand that a judge is required to avoid such ex parte communications. Others are dismissed because the evidence does not support the complaint. For example, a Texas prison inmate alleged that the judge who had presided in his trial had been prejudiced against him because they had once been married; the State Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed his complaint after its investigation revealed that the judge had never been' married to the complainant .
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Opinion Writing: Gerald Lebovits
    JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 Chicago, Illinois GERALD LEBOVITS Acting Justice, NYS Supreme Court Adjunct Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Judicial Opinion Writing For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 By: Gerald Lebovits Table of Contents Gerald Lebovits, Alifya V. Curtin & Lisa Solomon, Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 237 (2008).................................................................................... A Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part I, 78 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2006) ................................................................................. B Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part II, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Jan. 2007) ........................................................................................... C Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part III, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Feb. 2007)........................................................................................... D Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part I, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Oct. 2005) ........................................................................................... E Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part II, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2005) ................................................................................. F Gerald
    [Show full text]
  • Control Over the Jury Verdict in Louisiana Criminal Law Ralph Slovenko
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 | Number 4 June 1960 Control Over the Jury Verdict in Louisiana Criminal Law Ralph Slovenko Repository Citation Ralph Slovenko, Control Over the Jury Verdict in Louisiana Criminal Law, 20 La. L. Rev. (1960) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol20/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Control Over the Jury Verdict in Louisiana Criminal Law Ralph Slovenko* I. IN GENERAL Questions of fact are for the jury, it is said, and questions of law are for the judge. Ad quaestionem juris respondent judices, ad quaestionem facti respondent juratores. This is the theme which is found in every charge to a jury. The distinction be- tween law and fact, however, is somewhat tenuous, as is evi- denced by the legal jargon "mixed questions of law and fact," and it has given rise to the mistaken belief that the judge and jury are separate institutions within the judicial process. There is no separation of powers between judge and jury. The jury is designed to help the judge reach a decision.1 A verdict, except a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case, which for constitutional reasons is unassailable 2 has no legal effect until judgment is entered upon it, and it must be supported by the evidence. In early history, jurors were used by the king for obtaining information which he wanted for administrative purposes, as, for example, in the compilation of the Doomsday Book.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Dissents in the Formation of Precedent
    VARSAVA_MACROS (DO NOT DELETE) 6/6/2019 7:32 PM THE ROLE OF DISSENTS IN THE FORMATION OF PRECEDENT ∗ NINA VARSAVA ABSTRACT I argue that dissenting opinions play an important role in the formation of precedent in the context of plurality decisions. Courts typically treat plurality cases as precedential. However, procedures for interpreting and following plurality decisions vary considerably across courts and judges, producing major inconsistencies in the adjudication of cases that are ostensibly governed by the same law. I suggest that, when a majority of judges agrees on legal principle, that principle should have binding effect, even if the judges in principled agreement disagree on result or case outcome. I explain why some courts and most commentators have categorically excluded dissents from the holding category, and why that move is mistaken. First of all, an analysis of the holdings/dicta distinction shows that, in some cases, dissenting views belong on the holding side. Second, if we think that principled decisionmaking is fundamental to the authority and legitimacy of case law, then judicial agreement at the level of rationale or principle merits precedential status, even where those who agree on principle disagree on how a case should come out. Copyright © 2019 Nina Varsava. ∗ For helpful comments on drafts of this paper and discussions of the ideas I develop here, I’m grateful to Bernadette Meyler, Amalia Kessler, Gideon Yaffe, Alvin Klevorick, John Morley, Debra Satz, Joshua Landy, Kate Redburn, Emma Stone, Ryan Williams, Judith Resnik, Ian Ayres, Roseanna Sommers, Abner Greene, and Dmitry Orlov. Thank you also to the faculty of Queen’s University Faculty of Law in Kingston, Canada, as well as participants of the 2017 Yale Law Women Workshop and the 2018 Law, Culture, and Humanities Conference at the Georgetown University Law Center, where I presented earlier versions of the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Will the Federal Courts of Appeals Perish If They Publish? Or Does the Declining Use of Opinions to Explain and Justify Judicial Decisions Pose a Greater Threat?
    WILL THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS PERISH IF THEY PUBLISH? OR DOES THE DECLINING USE OF OPINIONS TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY JUDICIAL DECISIONS POSE A GREATER THREAT? MARTHAJ. DRAGICH* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............. ....................... 758 I. Practices Reducing the Role of the Opinion ......... 760 A. Selective Publication ........................ 760 B. Summary Disposition ...................... 763 C. Vacatur upon Settlement .................... 764 II. The Importance of'Judicial Opinions .............. 765 A. The Development of Law Through Adjudication .. 768 B. The Relationship of Opinion Publication to Stare Decisis .............................. 770 C. Opinions as Prerequisites to the Legitimacy of the Judicial Process ......................... 775 1. Stability . .............................. 777 2. Certainty .............................. 778 3. Predictability .......................... 779 4. Consistency ........................... 780 5. Fidelity to authority ...................... 780 D. Opinions as Essential Tools in Research and Analysis ............................. 781 * Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Law Library, University of Missouri- Columbia. J.D., MA. (Lib. Sci.) 1983, University of Minnesota. I wish to express my appreciation to Professors RobertJ. PushawJr.,James E. Westbrook, and William M. Richman, who commented on drafts of this Article; to Christine Apple Blegen for outstanding research assistance, and, most of all, to my husband, Lowell Pearson. THE AMERICAN UNrVERSrIy LAW REVIEW
    [Show full text]
  • Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: the Role of United Stat-Es Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws
    Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United Stat-es Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws. ANTONIN SCALIA THE FOLLOWING essay attempts to explain the current. ne-. glected state of the science of construing legal texts, and offers a few suggestions for improvement. It is addressed not just to· lawyers but to all thoughtful Americans who share our national obsession with the law. THE COMMON LAW The first year of law school makes an enormous impact upon the mind. Many students remark upon the phenomenon. They exp~rience a sort of intellectual rebirth, the acquisition of a whole new mode of perceiving and thinking. Thereafter, even if they do not yet know much law, they do-as the expression goe~"think like a lawyer." The overwhelming majority of the courses taught in that first year, and surely the ones that have the most profound effect, teach the substance, and the methodology, of the common law-torts, for example; contracts; property; criminal law. I am grateful for technical and research assistance by Matthew P. Previn, and for substantive suggestions by Eugene Scalia. 3 ' ANTONIN SCALIA COMMON-LAW COURTS IN A CIVIL-LAW SYSTEM American lawyers cut their teeth upon the common law. To un- pioneered by Harvard Law School in the last century,. and . derstand what an effect that must have, you must appreciate brought to movies and TV by the redoubtable Professor Kings­ that the common law is not really common law, except insofar field of Love Story and The Paper Chase. The student is directed to as judges can be regarded as common.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judicial Revival of Louisiana's Civilian Tradition: a Surprising Triumph for the American Influence, 49 La
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 49 | Number 1 September 1988 The udicJ ial Revival of Louisiana's Civilian Tradition: A Surprising Triumph for the American Influence Kenneth M. Murchison Repository Citation Kenneth M. Murchison, The Judicial Revival of Louisiana's Civilian Tradition: A Surprising Triumph for the American Influence, 49 La. L. Rev. (1988) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol49/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JUDICIAL REVIVAL OF LOUISIANA'S CIVILIAN TRADITION: A SURPRISING TRIUMPH FOR THE AMERICAN INFLUENCE Kenneth M. Murchison* Because Louisiana's legal system derives from a civil law base, legal scholars have generally ignored the state when describing legal devel- opments in the United States. After noting obvious anomalies like Louisiana's failure to adopt the sales and secured transaction portions of the Uniform Commercial Code,' these scholars usually except Louis- iana from the general trend they are describing. The burden of this paper is to demonstrate that this attitude is both unfortunate and unwise. Because the Louisiana tradition is distinct, it offers an unmatched opportunity for American scholars to understand how social and cultural influences have affected American law. To be sure, tracing these forces in a different environment will require ad- ditional time and energy, but the insights that emerge should justify the effort. At the same time, placing Louisiana in the American context will also help Louisiana scholars understand how national developments here influenced the state's legal system.
    [Show full text]