Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:52:28 -0400

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Law's (Il)logic

The problem with taking that statement from Quinn too literally is that it guts any justification for stare decisis other than one based on consistency unless there's a good reason not to be consistent. And, good reason becomes almost anything that the judge or jury might think is good reason that isn't proscribed. Taken literally, the result is a system based as much on whimsy as whim. Or, as Lord Denning said in Lamb, it's all policy.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: August 10, 2006 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: ODG: Law's (Il)logic

How about:

Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.) 1901:

[A] case is only authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>