Common Law and Equity: Main Article
Common Law and Equity: Main Article
Common Law and Equity: Main Article
the King's behalf the Lord Chancellor gave judgment to do what was equitable in a case. From the
time of Sir Thomas More, the first lawyer to be appointed as Lord Chancellor, a systematic body of
equity grew up alongside the rigid common law, and developed its own Court of Chancery. At first,
equity was often criticised as erratic, that it varied according to the length of the Chancellor's foot.
[101]
Over time, courts of equity developed solid principles, especially under Lord Eldon.[102] In the 19th
century in England, and in 1937 in the U.S., the two systems were merged.
In developing the common law, academic writings have always played an important part,
both to collect overarching principles from dispersed case law, and to argue for change. William
Blackstone, from around 1760, was the first scholar to collect, describe, and teach the common law.
[103]
But merely in describing, scholars who sought explanations and underlying structures slowly
changed the way the law actually worked.[104]
Religious law
Main article: Religious law
The Corpus Juris Canonici, the fundamental collection of canon law for over 750 years
3
Legal methods
There are distinguished methods of legal reasoning (applying the law) and methods of
interpreting (construing) the law. The former are legal syllogism, which holds sway in civil law legal
systems, analogy, which is present in common law legal systems, especially in the US, and
argumentative theories that occur in both systems. The latter are different rules (directives) of legal
interpretation such as directives of linguistic interpretation, teleological interpretation or systemic
interpretation as well as more specific rules, for instance, golden rule or mischief rule. There are also
many other arguments and cannons of interpretation which altogether make statutory
interpretation possible.
Law professor and former United States Attorney General Edward H. Levi noted that the
"basic pattern of legal reasoning is reasoning by example"—that is, reasoning by comparing
outcomes in cases resolving similar legal questions. [120] In a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding
procedural efforts taken by a debt collection company to avoid errors, Justice Sotomayor cautioned
that "legal reasoning is not a mechanical or strictly linear process".[121]
Jurimetrics is the formal application of quantitative methods,
especially probability and statistics, to legal questions. The use of statistical methods in court cases
and law review articles has grown massively in importance in the last few decades. [122][123]
4