“Our reading would lead to…”

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-125
Author(s):  
Davide Mazzi
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quantitative Investigation ◽  
Pragmatic Argumentation ◽  
Level Data ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Discourse Studies ◽  
Causal Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Discourse

Of the various subtypes of causal argumentation, one that has been sparking the interest of a large number of scholars across various contexts is pragmatic argumentation. This paper aims at undertaking an exploratory study of discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation in a synchronic corpus of judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The study began with a qualitative overview to be followed by a more quantitative investigation, in which discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation were lemmatized and searched for at a corpus level. Data show both the tendency of lemmas to occur within larger patterns, and the way these are correlated with an outline of both desirable and undesirable consequences the judge may draw the attention to. Findings thus appear to offer food for thought in the three largely interrelated areas of argumentation, discourse studies and legal theory.

Legal Aid for Children: Some Reflections

1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Brian Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
The Supreme Court

In its Second Main Report, Law and Poverty in Australia, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty expressed the view that “legal representation for children appearing before the children's court, whether in the criminal or protective jurisdiction, is necessary if justice is to be done.”This view coincides with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in In re Gault. It has been said that this decision “unleashed a frontal assault on the juvenile court system.” It confirmed that juveniles were entitled to “due process” and the same protection which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights afforded to adults.

The Red River Boundary Dispute

1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Clayton Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Red River ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Points Of View

The Supreme Court of the United States is now bringing to a close a case which has occupied its attention for five years, involving the boundary along the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. The principles of law applied by the court were not new, but the facts to which they were applied were complicated and interesting, both from historical and legal points of view, and when taken in connection with the warmth of popular feeling along the boundary, are perhaps worth recording in this JOURNAL, since they could easily have given rise to actual warfare had the contesting sovereignties been independent nations instead of members of the United States of America.

scholarly journals Form, Substance, and Neo-Proceduralism in Comparative Contract Law: Law in Books and Law in Action in New Zealand, England, the United States of America, and Japan

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Luke Richard Nottage
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
The United States ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
The Law ◽  
Japanese Law

<p>Part One of this thesis develops the "form-substance" analytical framework proposed by Atiyah and Summers to contrast English and US law generally, comparing also New Zealand and especially Japanese law. From this perspective, it argues that both US and Japanese law prefer distinctly more substantive reasoning, whereas both English and New Zealand law maintain a more formal orientation. Part Two focuses on three areas of contract law, and the development of contract law theory, arguing that the framework helps explain differing approaches adopted in these jurisdictions. Closer attention to the "law in action" as well as the "law in books", however, results in refinements to their analytical framework. It also suggests that "neo-proceduralist" models of law generally, and private law in particular, may be becoming increasingly important in both explaining and justifying developments in all four legal systems. Part Three introduces several of these models, which go beyond "form-substance" dichotomies without necessarily being inconsistent with them. This thesis therefore aims to offer new perspectives in three disciplines: comparative legal studies, contract law, and general legal theory.</p>

scholarly journals Age of Unreason: Rationality and the Regulatory State

2019 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Louise Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Special Problem ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory State ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
State Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

A curious phenomenon, not previously remarked, appears in current international and interstate cases in a common configuration. These are cases in which a nonresident sues a company at the company’s home; the plaintiff would almost certainly win there on stipulated facts; and judgment is for the defendant as a matter of law. In cases in this familiar configuration it appears that courts will struggle to find rationales. Judges attempt to rely on arguments which ordinarily would be serviceable, but which, in cases so configured, seem to become irrational. Because the relevant configuration of cases is common, the problem is widespread. And it is serious. A judgment unsupported by good reasons will appear to be a naked preference for the judgment winner. The Supreme Court has held that the bare appearance of a want of neutrality is a denial of due process. Many cases are cited, but this Article focuses on two recent examples, seemingly unrelated. The first example is a prominent international case in the United States Supreme Court, raising an issue of statutory construction. The second is an interstate case in a state supreme court, raising an issue of choice of law. But these disparate examples are importantly similar in that both are in the above-described configuration, and in both, the trial court withholds its own law. And in both, the court has trouble finding rational support for the outcome. This difficulty seems to be virtually inevitable in cases so configured. Critical and explanatory analyses are offered. The interstate example also raises a special problem of legal theory, discussed here as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document