Judicial reasoning hinges on judging which analogies are decisive
Evidence
As Levi recognized, however, the issue is not that simple. Both sets of earlier cases—those upholding and those striking down laws regulating expressive conduct—presumably resemble the flag-burning case in some respects and differ from it in others. A judge must therefore determine which similarities and which differences are decisive. According to Levi, this judicial determination of similarity and difference is the key step in the legal process. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2525
Categorization
- DEFINE: Explains Levi’s core claim that analogy judgment, not deduction, is the key step in legal reasoning.
- XREF: connects to: Judges create legal rules by weighing case similarities, not by applying fixed rules — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1263; Deductive judicial reasoning classifies facts, finds the rule, and applies it — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1253; Judges expand or narrow precedent by reasoning analogically, not mechanically. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1278 (+5 more)
Broader Connections
- Judges create and reshape legal rules by reasoning analogically across cases, not by deduction
#expands(0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2542 - Every analogy relies on contested judgments of which similarities are relevant
#expands(0.85) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 176 - Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities
#expands(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343 - Legal reasoning reduces to the judge drawing distinctions and the lawyer predicting them
#corroborates(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1301