Often, synthesis is necessary to derive rules. In this sense, synthesis is the linking of different authorities (for example, statutes, cases interpreting a statute, or cases developing the common law) into a comprehensive description that indicates a rule of law or an expression of legal policy. This form of synthesis focuses on the reasoning and facts that individual cases have in common, as governed by the language or applicable law, if any. Legal reasoning finds the rules, synthesizes (brings the rules together) and articulates the collective meaning, which may not emerge from court decisions on a particular issue. See discussion Arcane v. People classroom. The rule statement summarizes the key elements of the cases that are relevant to the problem in your case in a general explanation of the rule. To create an accurate and well-designed rule statement, you need to have a good understanding of the existing legal authority on which your rule statement is based. Existing legal authority includes constitutions, statutes, ordinances and decision-making powers, as well as previous judicial decisions that have interpreted other sources of legal authority such as constitutions and laws. The Court`s primary role is to implement the intentions of previous legislators, such as legislators and regulators, in the context of a new set of facts.
Nevertheless, judges can sometimes enact or amend laws themselves for the same reasons as legislators and regulators: to resolve social problems, to clarify, amend or set aside previous legislative efforts, or to establish fair and effective rules to help resolve new types of disputes. However, all court decisions must be based on and take into account certain pre-existing laws and the reasons or policies behind those rules. In this form of synthesis, it is useful to understand some basic legal concepts for which we have also developed tutorials on the web, including: In legal analysis, synthesis is understood as a process of linking different rules. The ability to synthesize is a crucial part of legal analysis in U.S. law. How does a good rule statement sound? The answer depends in part on the purpose for which you are writing. If you are writing forward-looking articles, such as in a memorandum from a law firm dealing with a common law issue, your statement of rules should summarize the recurring elements (common threads) of court decisions that relate to that issue. It works best as a general legal statement, formulated as a definition rather than as a question or comment about what the court might consider or do. If the source of a rule is the right to decide, remember that in a single case or group of cases, a rule may not be explicitly or completely specified. Rather, it must be drawn from the factual context in which the shareholdings in those cases arose. The author of a rule statement deals with the synthesis of rules by bringing together the commonalities of several cases and reconciling the differences between them. A complete articulation of a synthesized rule explains all these threads and divergences.
An accurate summary of the rules certainly requires the author to take into account the hierarchy of authority, including the primary or secondary nature 3 of authority, the obligatory or persuasive nature 4 of authority, and the timeliness 5 of authority. 4 Binding authority is the law (i.e., the principal authority) that binds the court deciding the case. For example, decisions of the New York Court of Appeals are binding on all lower courts in New York. The power of persuasion is a law that does not bind the court, although the court may, at its discretion, be guided by that law. For example, a Connecticut court is not bound by New York decisions; However, because of the greater number of New York cases, New York decisions may allow for a more comprehensive examination of the different factual contexts or political analysis behind a particular legal norm than is the case in Connecticut jurisprudence. As a result, a Connecticut court may choose to follow New York jurisprudence. For the same reasons, a federal court in one county may choose to attach importance to the decisions of another county, although it is not bound by those decisions. Out of respect for the legal analysis of certain judges or decisions, a court may also attach importance to dicta in relevant cases. Another form of synthesis is to understand how different rules fit together to form a general statement of law or “black letter” in an area of jurisprudence. 3 Primary jurisdiction includes constitutions, statutes, by-laws and court decisions. The secondary authority refers to treaties, legal review articles and other published commentaries. 5 A court is never bound by its own previous decisions.
If two cases are considered binding in a particular jurisdiction, but the cases are contradictory, the most recent case is binding. For cases that are only persuasive authorities, new opinions have a more persuasive value when all other things are otherwise equal. It is considered good form when writing memos to make a clear statement about the synthesized rule before providing proof of the rule, i.e. before discussing the cases from which you distilled your rule statement. This format may seem counterintuitive to some. After all, you must first read the cases and identify the policies and arguments of these courts before you can distill the elements of the synthesized rule from all these opinions. Nevertheless, from the reader`s point of view, your discussion is more understandable if you first state the most important organizing idea (from the supporting cases), and then follow that statement with a discussion of the jurisprudence that supports and executes the main idea. Home » Law School Learning Aids » Teaching Experience » Objectives » Executive Summary.