Most litigation arises because the meaning of law is uncertain

Evidence

Lee v. Weisman’s exclusive focus on legal rather than factual questions is hardly exceptional. Often, in cases ranging from the most highly charged constitutional conflicts to the most mundane private disputes, the issue is solely the meaning of the law and how it applies. Other cases may raise issues of fact and law simultaneously. Yet the view that litigation is aimed at defining what the law means is inconsistent with the notion that law is a set of rules whose meaning is stable and certain. Indeed, much litigation arises precisely because the meaning of the law Law may be uncertain for several reasons. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 195

Categorization

• QUESTION: Where does the cut-off paragraph continue? The argument trails into the point that law’s meaning is contested — worth tracking how the chapter develops reasons for that indeterminacy.
• XREF: connects to: Legal disputes often turn on meaning, not facts — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 185; Litigation arises because legal meaning is unstable and uncertain — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 186; Most people conform to law and even wrongdoers crave legal certainty — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 182 (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• Legal uncertainty creates disputes, litigation, and judicial discretion #expands (0.92) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 214
• Common folk views of law overstate its certainty and finality #corroborates (0.83) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 186
• Judges create law when forced to choose among competing interpretations. #exemplifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 196
• Literal application of legal rules sometimes produces absurd against-purpose outcomes #exemplifies (0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 284
• Conceptual puzzles about ‘the law’ and ‘legal obligation’ become acute when a court is confronted with a problem like this. #exemplifies (0.78)
• Legal language holds meaning across unforeseeable contexts through a promise-like indeterminacy #complicates (0.75)
• Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths #qualifies (0.74) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242