Giving a reason for a decision commits one to a broader rule

Evidence

Thus, when a court provides a reason for a decision, it gives a justification necessarily broader than that decision, and accordingly it announces what is in effect a rule (or a principle, standard, norm, or maxim) more general than the decision itself. To provide a reason in a particular case is to transcend the very particularity of that case. And indeed, the same structure operates when a court seeks to justify a rule or principle itself. Just as providing a reason for an outcome ordinarily takes the outcome to a greater level of generality, so too does providing a reason for a reason-or a reason for a rule or a reason for a principle. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 324

Categorization

• SEED: This ‘generalizing reason’ structure could anchor a piece on how personal justifications lock in future commitments far beyond the original act.
• XREF: connects to: Stating a reason creates a presumptive commitment to follow it later — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 325; Deductive legal reasoning requires identifying the controlling major premise. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 751; A statutory statement-of-grounds requirement pressured an agency into developing reviewable decision criteria. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2907

Related

• Stating a reason creates a presumptive commitment to follow it later (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Stating a reason creates a presumptive commitment to follow it later #corroborates (0.92) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 325
• Deductive legal reasoning requires identifying the controlling major premise. #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 751