Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chapter IV. Legal Logic and Reasoning 1663751017

    Uploaded by

    Jemima Shammah
    21 views7 pages
    BOOK CHAPTER

    Original Title

    Chapter IV. Legal Logic and Reasoning 1663751017 (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    BOOK CHAPTER

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views7 pages

    Chapter IV. Legal Logic and Reasoning 1663751017

    Uploaded by

    Jemima Shammah
    BOOK CHAPTER

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    CHAPTER 19 siructure of Legal Argument versal pattern of logic th, hich legal disputes arise, The 1 reasoning follows 4 8 Lega hes ofthe cones it Me Theat rege this seemingly simple pattern is soy In reality, however . _ meting revs messy uncetai litigation; diverse fram buried by a host of acon sand ambiguous anguage of the [aytet fcer of the court, Ls lawyer ria the jade “f conflting claims, so that this vorangle oe ‘They can discharge that daa ime may te coved, The can, docteree tae plings. ht we ey make teaver work ipoent tenes of ep Resnig cra soning isa convergence of four elements 1.) the gro a a re te backing and 4.) the lim.” nd 1. Ground, A ground is “a statement specifying parca, flee about 2 situation that is invoked 0 establish the Tras Ray, The Archince of Argument 4 PHILJA J the warrant of conclusions is that authorizes that a conclusion vdduced in evidence," “eel pee es eee as thy cine che NOE sen ye sagen Kn X owns a Japanese Spitz dog. tothe annoyance of ¥. One ed by X-ThenX sed for malcous neat dissect the above example and identify the el backing, and the ron Tis can be sone op te low following Fr. Aguin's model etd 226, G MAIN AND SIMPLE war THA Lec Y is ei P| Mischief und spc iefying the cements of legal reasoning eran ing ee WS HH hg, searching th Es andthe apliable l- dar now ben spl a og But che realy isa ‘a shwl ge Hd argue two tings: Fist the ithe Fm Yer the skill egal logic cu (EXERCISE) Read Raminet v. Court of Appeals.» This involves i Act No, 4200 or the ing Law. Then i the grounds, the warrant, and the backing. reasoning. 1, CHAPTER 29 Forms of Legal Reasoning Deductve Reasoning Deductive reason from the general to the general rule toa specific ease S commonly eden ths snp segs fn Moje amie Minor Pie Coden For the concasion tobe a and aid bth he mse and the mir remiss be at and lke ths ITING PLAIN AND SIMILE st consider if whay the proviso or the PP - egal and te sateen established as admissibe to Pi, loving ida Patek Philippe watch to his neighbor 2% pickrosht ager than the original. Even though X ce woke the watch, Y bought the way id Y comm dl ch Wh segh emeraht ei eR elt Ant oo ete msl any atl item objeto he knows, or should be ido Ti 22 tog ‘bought a Patek Ploy wa eluent us eMPP MA on sag “Yi 2, Inductive Reasoning Another form of legal tasoning is inductive reasoni Jn contrat to deve renin ince wei proceds fom the specie ay Focmulaingaconclion bed on Nowhere is ince reasoning more appar when a court decides whch comet ee Sicumstantieidene of fencing We know that a crime is almost lw a clandestine manne. To evade ‘ean, criminal would caer ou he cannot be seen, sacha the fact of crime remain undiscovered. ‘That is why “resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many eases, ttng felons fee and deny proper protectin tothe community." Under the Rules of Cour, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction from which inferences ae derived ae case, the trial Court convicted under Section 1 of RD. No. 161 his neighbors, Rober ‘consequently ‘ling t Appeals 38 were sleeping Supreme Court af People Balen, GR. No. 200897, a 13,206, RULES OF COUR, GR No 204891, Sp 2, 206 gga WRITING PLAN AND SMILE tba 10 ‘CHMITER 2 Fog REAONING a eed the events leading examin of Appeals these a Sonoma ep at ag lee ec ates vihen she yelled “sablol!", a the accused bees, Judicial decisions applying roserandle Constion fom par athe “e_Teveaien at around 11:00 inthe evening, neg Tis deem connon Ta er Robes ao 7 Aces —_| ocine— commen aw orga ra ee reel a Memeo art Besides, we adhere tothe sae deci doce I Gs stench of leaking gs indicating hat sy secures certainty and sabi of ji Sundance of such had indeed seped out, Supreme Court said in Lazatin « Desierto: 44. Roberto Ignacio then proceeded to the place of “ewe and sa the later holding an ut sei pola akong this, Roberto cole tank away IND SIMPLE exittNG PLAIN A LEGAL WRT because 1 deductive reason ‘down in the earlier case. ietum tio Dien vs. Obie 2 you api nda opinions a8 binding precede, yg pion ae considered be then distinguish between ance Bur when sents in do you know which tate ad wich are noe? You See dtm Tr Lond Bank ofthe Phitppines«.Suntay, the Supreme Coa, expounded onthe concep of biter dictum: remy cir ras Lg Resening 2 court’ decisi that a previous court founded its deco In other words, bot of the ratio from the obit, though i legs i compounde by he for hf en the ratio north oil with much explcinest Tar fay dowa binding ease, You must closely examine an ober. m wheter the stone ‘A ratio does not, however, asily become a doctrine of law. When doe ratio becomes Soctine ra ctees ea goeof Whs ‘Fa canon? According to Justice Leonen: A single instance when a rang is aid means mere veto. decidend, Ratio. decency when enc qehen epesed in several arous Precedent, sometimes the court does nat And then ic declares tha acted casei not applicable to the case under consid Court in Daaco v. Yu declared Leobrera v. Court of Appeals LAIN AW svar . iyoaL wiv” he cases We cite by web neha CHAPTER 21 Interplay of Legal Reasoning cal feasoning in aw is ig fem A bas 4 cerain characte a he ers rom Ain some ropes waracterstics X, Y, and Z;" Shing ‘Aina certain ways and Consider the ase Peoples: Abayon. How di ean folate tow did the Supreme Cour = soe sharescertai characteristics Wit A, hey a creas a Atte wh commit he cn of ant ame hou 5 deductive reasoning the Cour staned with the major premise supplied by Seton 1 of PD, No, 1615, 4 NEA He mo pe oil reasoning, © iadBe MAY “SUEY Pak deci Using sar simile to o df “ech thee desi fen ie tein before bey and develo a princi nd iflerecs She considers inporane 8 ides the basis forthe judge's on decision, risiions, however, lawyers and judges hy pide rrciel eecien er eel hen the words ofthe law are ty a law-making

    You might also like