Common-law and civil-law thought differ as empiricism differs from rationalism.
Evidence
Legal thinking in common-law systems emphasizes the concrete rather than the general and places its faith in experience rather than in abstractions. In contrast, legal thinking in civil-law systems reasons from principles to particular instances and has an inclination toward systematizing. As one commentator has put it, a civil-law system “differs from a common-law system much as rationalism differs from empiricism or deduction from induction.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 148
Categorization
- DEFINE: Core contrast used throughout the course between common-law and civil-law frames of mind.
- XREF: Connects to rationalism-versus-empiricism debates in philosophy of science and legal realism. — connects to: Legal Realists proposed analogy-based reasoning as an alternative to deduction — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1259; Common law rules arise from comparing cases, not from tracing prior logic — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 222; The common law adapts to social and economic change — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Common law rules arise from comparing cases, not from tracing prior logic
#exemplifies(0.82) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 222 - The common law adapts to social and economic change
#expands(0.78) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311 - Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent.
#complicates(0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 66 - Common-law systems share features derived from English law and practice.
#expands(0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 106