Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Public Law and Legal Theory (5)
- Judicial decisions (4)
- Medical jurisprudence (3)
- Legislative intent (2)
- Bad Samaritan (1)
-
- Benson (1)
- Cardozo (1)
- Case of the Speluncean Explorers (1)
- Concept of Equality (1)
- Conflicts of law (private international law) (1)
- Consent (1)
- Continental Shelf (1)
- Criminal Liability (1)
- Deconstruction (1)
- Doctrinalists (1)
- Duty To Warn or Rescue (1)
- Dworkin's Rights Thesis (1)
- Elmer's rule (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Estoppel (1)
- Ex post facto laws (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Genovese Killing (1)
- Good Samaritan (1)
- Hegland (1)
- Indeterminacy (1)
- International Law (1)
- International Norms (1)
- International law (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
The Effect Of Legal Theories On Judicial Decisions, Anthony D'Amato
The Effect Of Legal Theories On Judicial Decisions, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
I draw a distinction in the beginning of this essay between judicial decision-making and a judge's decision-making. To persuade a judge, we should try to discover what her theories are. Across a range of theories, I offered well-known case examples typically cited as examples of each theory. Then I showed that the exact same theory used to justify or explain those case results could be used to justify or explain the opposite result in each of those cases.
The Injustice Of Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, Anthony D'Amato
The Injustice Of Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
How can we possibly plan our lives on the basis of the law of tomorrow when we can't predict what that law will be? Are courts that are attracted to dynamic statutory interpretation teaching us that we can no longer know and rely on the rule of law in our daily lives because months or years later they can use policy considerations to make new law and apply that law retroactively to us? Doesn't dynamic statutory interpretation amount to unconstitutional ex post facto legislation? Hasn't justice become impossible to get from courts if judges insist on upsetting both sides' expectations …
Can Legislatures Constrain Judicial Interpretation Of Statutes?, Anthony D'Amato
Can Legislatures Constrain Judicial Interpretation Of Statutes?, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
An aspect of the battle over deconstruction is whether resort to legislative intent might help to determine the content of a statutory text that otherwise, in splendid isolation, could be deconstructed by simply positing different interpretive contexts. I examine the same issue by recounting my own quest for determinate meaning in statutes—a sort of personal legislative history. I do not claim for jurisprudence the role of ensuring faithful reception of the legislature's message, for that is impossible. At best, jurisprudential theory only reduces the degrees of interpretive freedom, and then only probably, not necessarily. The more significant thesis of this …
Pragmatic Indeterminacy, Anthony D'Amato
Pragmatic Indeterminacy, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
If, as a result of taking Indeterminacy seriously, we revolutionize the way we teach law and the way we select judges, then we will also revolutionize the way cases are litigated (because the new judges will expect to hear a different kind of argumentation) and the way people order their lives in anticipation of the way their disputes will be decided by these new judges.
Legal Realism Explains Nothing, Anthony D'Amato
Legal Realism Explains Nothing, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
I argue that American legal realism as derived from Oliver Wendell Holmes's prediction theory of law was misinterpreted, and that a deeper examination of law-as-prediction might help to reduce the pathology of judicial lawmaking that has been the unfortunate consequence of legal realism.
The Speluncean Explorers--Further Proceedings, Anthony D'Amato
The Speluncean Explorers--Further Proceedings, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
Lon L. Fuller's The Case of the Speluncean Explorers is a classic in jurisprudence. The case presents five judicial opinions which clash with each other and produce for the reader an exhilarating excursion into fundamental theories of law and the state and the role of courts vis-i-vis legislatures and executives. Though the issues articulated by Fuller are timeless, the past thirty years in jurisprudential scholarship have produced at least one major new vantage point—the "rights thesis".
Consent, Estoppel, And Reasonableness: Three Challenges To Universal International Law, Anthony D'Amato
Consent, Estoppel, And Reasonableness: Three Challenges To Universal International Law, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
Like consent and estoppel, the concept of reasonableness, while failing to provide an adequate explanation of the source of obligation in customary international law, does play an important psychological role in adding to the pressure of international norms upon states. The result is to increase the sense of legality of the rules that are accepted by states as part of "customary international law." This is not to say that each and every alleged rule of universal international law must contain one or more of the elements of consent, estoppel, or reasonableness in order for it to be "valid."
The "Bad Samaritan" Paradigm, Anthony D'Amato
The "Bad Samaritan" Paradigm, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
This essay will attempt to show that the disparity between the rule of law and the dictates of morality is itself a product of the paradigmatic way in which the "Bad Samaritan" cases are analyzed. If we examine the cases in an entirely different way, many of the standard problems will dissolve and new alternatives will become apparent. The essay will also show that the "Bad Samaritan" paradigm is part of a larger paradigm linking the law of torts with the criminal law, which also needs to be reexamined. Finally a recommendation for dealing with the "Bad Samaritan" problem legislatively …
Elmer's Rule: A Jurisprudential Dialogue, Anthony D'Amato
Elmer's Rule: A Jurisprudential Dialogue, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
Cardozo wrote of Riggs v. Palmer that this case that two analytical paths pointed in different directions and the judges selected the path that seemed better to lead to "justice". Dworkin has claimed that the case demonstrates the triumph of certain "principles" over what are called "rules of law". Taylor has argued that there was no "law" at all about murderers inheriting from testators before the actual decision in Riggs, and that consequently the decision itself was the only "law" that affected Elmer. All of these suggest that the decision in Riggs was largely unpredictable and therefore must have come …
Judicial Legislation, Anthony D'Amato
Judicial Legislation, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
My argument will be that it is unjust in the broadest view of our legal system for judges to legislate, even if they confine their legislation to the narrowest limits in the closest of cases. To the extent that my argument is successful in diminishing the judicial legislation position, it would tend to serve to corroborate Dworkin's rights thesis.
Is Equality A Totally Empty Idea?, Anthony D'Amato
Is Equality A Totally Empty Idea?, Anthony D'Amato
Faculty Working Papers
Comments on Westen article The Empty Idea of Equality. The only way we know what direction to move in making reductions and increases in burdens is to have a concept of equality in mind. The only way we can know that one burden is 'great' and another burden is 'considerably lesser,' to use the words in Westen's standard, is to compare the burdens. But comparison presupposes a measure of equality, for we cannot know that one burden is greater than another unless we first have a concept of when the two burdens are equal. Westen's standard, therefore, is logically posterior …