Summery on Legal Reasoning

Many of the arguments used by attorneys in the United States and Canada to support a case in
court are analogous arguments. This is because the legal systems of these countries were
derived from the English system many years ago and a key feature of the English system is
its reliance on precedent. According to precedent, similar cases must be decided in a similar
way. Therefore, in arguing a case, a lawyer will often attempt to show that the case is
analogous to a previous case that was decided in the affirmative behaviour Sometimes, even
today, these precedents go back to early English law.

In the early days, much of English law was the direct result of judges rendering decisions in
particular cases. This judge-made law is otherwise called common law. However, today
many of our laws are not the direct product of judges but rather of legislative bodies. These
laws, called statutes, are codified in books that are periodically revised. Statutory laws are
invariably phrased in relatively general language, and precedent is required to determine how
the statutes should be interpreted and applied.

As already pointed out many of the arguments that occur in law are arguments from analogy,
and different principles can be used to evaluate them. The first principle, which deals with the
relevance of the similarities, the two cases that we make analogy must be similar to each
other unless it became pointless. The second and third principles, which deal with the number
of similarities and the nature and degree of disanalogiy, If the case resembles the case at
hand in virtually all important details, then the preceding case is said to be on point given
certain other requirements will dictate the outcome of the case to be decided. As applied to
legal analogies, the fourth principle (number of primary analogates) usually determines how
well established a legal precedent is. If fifty previous courts have followed a certain rule, the
precedent is stronger (everything else being equal) than if only two courts have followed that
rule. The fifth principle (diversity of primary analogates) is also applicable. If a certain rule
turns up in a broad range of cases, it provides a stronger precedent (other things being equal)
than a rule that turns up in a narrow range of cases. Finally, the sixth principle states that the
more specific a conclusion is, the weaker the argument becomes.

Analogical arguments that occur in law differ from the fairly simple analogies. In simple fair
analogy the modes of similarity that linked the analogates were clearly defined by
conventional thinking, and their relevance to the conclusion has been established by scientific
principles. In law, however, clarity of this sort is seldom to be found. Modes of similarity
between cases are often the result of highly creative thinking by lawyers and judges, and the
relevance of these. Similarities to the proposed conclusion are nearly always debatable.

The other difference between simple analogical arguments and those found in law is that the
primary analogates in law do not all have equal weight. The reason is that the courts operate
in different jurisdictions. The system of federal courts is totally separate from the system of
state courts. As a result, a case that might have considerable weight as a precedent in one
system might have little or no weight in the other. In addition, within these systems there are
different circuits, and a case that is controlling in one circuit may not be in
nother.Lastly, within these systems, the courts exist on different levels. For example, within
the federal system there are the district courts, courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
A case that is binding on a lower court may not be binding on a higher court.

Lawyers and judges may sometimes face unclear and unprecedented cases. Such cases are
called first impression cases, and trying to appeal to similar instances and handle them
requires more creativity than trying to handle normal cases. When deciding on a first
impression case, judges often resort to moral debates and look for analogies that may shed
some light. The reasoning process in such a decision often involves a series of analogies,
followed by dissimilarities and anti-similarities. These analogies present themes in the ever-
changing light, and the experience of working with them broadens the horizons of thinkers. A
new perspective was born, the attitude changed, and the world view changed.
 ADDIS ABAB UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW AND
GOVERNANCE
SCHOOL OF LAW

Logic for lawyers’ assignment

Adugna Shimeslise …………………….UGR/2068/12