Legal Realists proposed analogy-based reasoning as an alternative to deduction

Evidence

The deficiencies of the deductive model led a group of legal scholars, known as the Legal Realists, to propose alternative explanations of judicial decision making. One influential Legal Realist, Edward Levi, has suggested that legal reasoning is best understood as reasoning by example and analogy rather than as deductive reasoning. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1259

Categorization

• DEFINE: Identifies the Legal Realists and Levi’s analogy-based model as the deductive model’s successor.
• XREF: Connects Edward Levi’s analogy model to other discussions of Reasoning by Example mentioned in legal theory contexts. — connects to: Common-law and civil-law thought differ as empiricism differs from rationalism. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 148; Judges create and reshape legal rules by reasoning analogically across cases, not by deduction — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2542; Deductive judicial reasoning classifies facts, finds the rule, and applies it — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1253

Broader Connections

• Judges create and reshape legal rules by reasoning analogically across cases, not by deduction #expands (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2542
• Deductive judicial reasoning classifies facts, finds the rule, and applies it #qualifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1253