Judges create and reshape legal rules by reasoning analogically across cases, not by deduction

Evidence

This survey of the Supreme Court’s privacy rulings illustrates how legal change may occur in a system of precedent. Judges may not apply precedent in the mechanical fashion the deductive model suggests. Rather, they may reason by example or analogy and thus expand or narrow the reach of earlier decisions. In Eisenstadt and Roe, for example, the Court discovered similarities to Griswold that led it to extend the right to privacy to new situations. In contrast, the Court found that the situation in Bowers was fundamentally different from that in previous cases and concluded that the right to privacy did not prevent legal regulation of homosexual activity. Only when the Court in Lawrence reconceptualized its understanding of the facts did it reach a different conclusion. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2542

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Legal Realists proposed analogy-based reasoning as an alternative to deduction — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1259; Deductive reasoning cannot explain novel cases, competing rules, or legal change — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1256; Deductive judicial reasoning classifies facts, finds the rule, and applies it — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1253 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• Common law rules arise from comparing cases, not from tracing prior logic #corroborates (0.95) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 222
• Legal reasoning reduces to the judge drawing distinctions and the lawyer predicting them #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1301
• Deductive legal analysis applies established characteristic propositions to new cases #contradicts (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 680
• Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction #expands (0.78) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676
• Legal reasoning employs both deductive and inductive processes iteratively. #contradicts (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312
• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities #expands (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547
• Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. #responds-to (0.75) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38
• Hidden value judgments, not logic, drive key judicial decisions #qualifies (0.70) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2550