Abstract
A further line of attack on the apparent conflict and uncertainty among the decisions in appellate courts has been to seek more understandable statement of them by grouping the facts in new-and typically but not always narrower-categories. The search is for correlations of fact-situation and outcome which (aided by common sense) may reveal when courts seize on one rather than another of the competing premises. One may even stumble on the trail of why they do . . . The process is in essence the orthodox technique of making distinctions, and reformulating-but undertaken systematically; exploited consciously, instead of being reserved until facts which refuse to be twisted by 'interpretation' force action. The departure from orthodox procedure lies chiefly in the distrust of, instead of search for, the widest sweep of generalization words permit. Not that such sweeping generalizations are not desired-if they can be made so as to state what judges do. (Karl Llewellyn, 'Some Realism about Realism-Responding to Dean Pound' 44 Harv L Rev 1222, 1240-1 (1931).)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
