Not-So-Easy Cases

Research output: Contribution to conferencePresentationResearch

Abstract

The distinction between easy and hard cases in judicial decision-making is well known from the work of Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin focuses primarily on the challenges posed by hard cases. Easy cases, by contrast, remain relatively under-theorised. This paper begins by exploring how judges decide easy cases by relying on holistic intuitive judgments. I then build on Dworkin’s analysis by introducing a third category of cases, which I call not-so-easy cases. I argue that easy, not-so-easy and hard cases are distinguished by the extent to which the judge’s intuitive judgments about the factual and legal context for the case yield a clear and determinate outcome. Easy cases are fully resolved at an intuitive level and merely require judges to articulate their decisions; not-so-easy cases are tentatively resolved at an intuitive level but require judges to explain their decisions; and hard cases are unresolved at an intuitive level and require judges to justify their decisions. I offer an account of the decision procedures involved in each type of case. I further contend that most cases heard by appellate courts are not-so-easy cases. This suggests that the primary task of such courts is explanation (rather than justification, as Dworkin proposes).
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2018
EventHart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy - University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
Duration: 9 May 20189 May 2018
https://surreycentrelp.org/events/jonathan-crowe-not-so-easy-cases/

Seminar

SeminarHart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy
CountryUnited Kingdom
CityGuildford
Period9/05/189/05/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

appellate court
decision making

Cite this

Crowe, J. (2018). Not-So-Easy Cases. Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Crowe, Jonathan. / Not-So-Easy Cases. Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy, Guildford, United Kingdom.
@conference{d3c5aa99c74d4029ac750247b4807627,
title = "Not-So-Easy Cases",
abstract = "The distinction between easy and hard cases in judicial decision-making is well known from the work of Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin focuses primarily on the challenges posed by hard cases. Easy cases, by contrast, remain relatively under-theorised. This paper begins by exploring how judges decide easy cases by relying on holistic intuitive judgments. I then build on Dworkin’s analysis by introducing a third category of cases, which I call not-so-easy cases. I argue that easy, not-so-easy and hard cases are distinguished by the extent to which the judge’s intuitive judgments about the factual and legal context for the case yield a clear and determinate outcome. Easy cases are fully resolved at an intuitive level and merely require judges to articulate their decisions; not-so-easy cases are tentatively resolved at an intuitive level but require judges to explain their decisions; and hard cases are unresolved at an intuitive level and require judges to justify their decisions. I offer an account of the decision procedures involved in each type of case. I further contend that most cases heard by appellate courts are not-so-easy cases. This suggests that the primary task of such courts is explanation (rather than justification, as Dworkin proposes).",
author = "Jonathan Crowe",
note = "Oral presentation/talk; Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy ; Conference date: 09-05-2018 Through 09-05-2018",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
url = "https://surreycentrelp.org/events/jonathan-crowe-not-so-easy-cases/",

}

Crowe, J 2018, 'Not-So-Easy Cases' Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy, Guildford, United Kingdom, 9/05/18 - 9/05/18, .

Not-So-Easy Cases. / Crowe, Jonathan.

2018. Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy, Guildford, United Kingdom.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePresentationResearch

TY - CONF

T1 - Not-So-Easy Cases

AU - Crowe, Jonathan

N1 - Oral presentation/talk

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - The distinction between easy and hard cases in judicial decision-making is well known from the work of Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin focuses primarily on the challenges posed by hard cases. Easy cases, by contrast, remain relatively under-theorised. This paper begins by exploring how judges decide easy cases by relying on holistic intuitive judgments. I then build on Dworkin’s analysis by introducing a third category of cases, which I call not-so-easy cases. I argue that easy, not-so-easy and hard cases are distinguished by the extent to which the judge’s intuitive judgments about the factual and legal context for the case yield a clear and determinate outcome. Easy cases are fully resolved at an intuitive level and merely require judges to articulate their decisions; not-so-easy cases are tentatively resolved at an intuitive level but require judges to explain their decisions; and hard cases are unresolved at an intuitive level and require judges to justify their decisions. I offer an account of the decision procedures involved in each type of case. I further contend that most cases heard by appellate courts are not-so-easy cases. This suggests that the primary task of such courts is explanation (rather than justification, as Dworkin proposes).

AB - The distinction between easy and hard cases in judicial decision-making is well known from the work of Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin focuses primarily on the challenges posed by hard cases. Easy cases, by contrast, remain relatively under-theorised. This paper begins by exploring how judges decide easy cases by relying on holistic intuitive judgments. I then build on Dworkin’s analysis by introducing a third category of cases, which I call not-so-easy cases. I argue that easy, not-so-easy and hard cases are distinguished by the extent to which the judge’s intuitive judgments about the factual and legal context for the case yield a clear and determinate outcome. Easy cases are fully resolved at an intuitive level and merely require judges to articulate their decisions; not-so-easy cases are tentatively resolved at an intuitive level but require judges to explain their decisions; and hard cases are unresolved at an intuitive level and require judges to justify their decisions. I offer an account of the decision procedures involved in each type of case. I further contend that most cases heard by appellate courts are not-so-easy cases. This suggests that the primary task of such courts is explanation (rather than justification, as Dworkin proposes).

UR - https://surreycentrelp.org/events/jonathan-crowe-not-so-easy-cases/

M3 - Presentation

ER -

Crowe J. Not-So-Easy Cases. 2018. Hart Seminar Series, Surrey Centre for Law and Philosophy, Guildford, United Kingdom.