10-12mins?Myname.Preso3tle.TheQRcodeandwebaddressherewilltakeyoutoablogpostwiththeseslidesandthenotesonthemandwiththehandout.

1

READ.Notelaterterminologicaldiscussion.Let’sconsiderasimplifiedexample[NEXT]

2

Photocredit:“smartelectricdrive,”©2012GriinBlog,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/cniKFmImaginethereisanordinance…“Anyonewhooperatesavehicleintheparkisguiltyofamisdemeanor.”Imaginethattheordinancepassedinresponsetopeopledrivingautomobilesoverthecurb,acrosssidewalks,andontoparklawnsduringpicnics,par3es,andevents.Thisseemstobeaverysimplelegalruletoapply,butalmostcertainly,therewillbedifficul3es.Oneimportantques3onis[NEXT]

3

Graphiccredits:“Oldcar,”©2008BogdanSuditu,CCBY2.0.hXps://flic.kr/p/4C84Ra;“Myoldbike,”©2008KeithBarlow,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/5swrWb;“ClassicBri3shMotorcycles–Ariel,”©2015PaulTownsend,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/rcuUej;“motorbike,”©2014krismadden,CCBY-NC-SA2.0,hXps://flic.kr/p/voVS5J(ExampleadaptedfromH.L.A.Hart,pp.126-27.)•  Case1:Wehavetheparadigma3cvehicle,thethingeveryonehadinmindwhen

thelawpassed.Nooneevenaskswhethertheruleapplies.•  Case2:Courtsaysno.Itmen3onsthatitis“Notself-propelled”thoughsome

dic3onariesincludeunpropelledobjectsinthe“vehicle”category.•  Case3:Motorcycle?Yes.Courtonlysays,“It’smorelikeacarthanlikeabicycle.”

Itdoesn’tsayhow.•  Thecourthasneveradoptedaruleaboutwhatisandisnotavehicle,butevenifit

did,itcouldnotnecessarilyforeseehowitwouldapplyinfuture.(Andtotheextentthatitgovernscasesunlikethosecurrentlybeforethecourt,therulewouldbedictum—thelegalwayofsayingit’snotbindingonfuturecourts.)

•  SonowweareconfrontedwithCase4:Abicyclewithamotor,butwherethemotorwasnotrunningwhenthecita3onwasissued.[CLICKNOW]Inotherwords,theriderwaspedallingit.Isthismorelikethebicycleorthecarormotorcycle,andonwhatbasismightwemakethedetermina3on?Whatsimilari3esaretherebetweenthebicycleandtheobjectsinthepreviouscases?Whichsimilari3esarerelevanttothisdecision?[NEXT]

4

Whyistheques3onofhowexemplaryargumentworksimportant?Well[NEXT](POTsaidonedifferencebetweenanalogyandexampleisthatanalogiesspantwo“spheres.”Forexample:“Awomanneedsamanlikeafishneedsabicycle.”Thisanalogycomparesthingsinwidelydivergentspheres.POTsaidthatifoneisapplyingthesamelegalruletotwositua3ons,oneisusingexemplaryreasoning.Becauselawyersandlegaltheoristssay“analogizing,”I’llprobablyslipandcallitanalogyheresome3mes,too.)

5

•  [READSLIDEFIRST]•  Makingajudgelayoutanargument(whetheritaccuratelyrepresentsher

reasoningorno)makesthelawsuscep3bletoreviewonappeal,topublicdebate,andtorevisionbystatuteorothermeans.

•  Sotheques3onthenis[NEXT]

6

•  Dr.ScoXBrewer,professoroflawandphilosophyatHarvard.[READ]Giventheexis3ngcases,whatrulemightbestexplainthem?Inthevehicleexample,ourproponent(theprosecutor)mightabducefromthepreviouscasesthatsomethingonorinwhichahumancanrideisavehicleifitiscapableofself-propulsion.Theproponent/prosecutorthenappliestherule.Bicycleswithmotorsarecapableofself-propulsion.Therefore,bicycleswithmotorsarevehicles.

•  Ofcourse,thisshivstheques3ontoabduc3onandhowitworks.Breweressen3allydodgesthisques3on,spendingveryliXle3meexplainingwhatmakesanabduc3onreasonable,otherthantosaythattheproponentmustofferara3onaleforit.Brewerexplainsargumentfromanalogybydoingawaywithit,replacingitwithanunexplainedabduc3onandatrivialdeduc3on.

•  Weinreb,alsoaHarvardlawprofessor,takestheintui3veapproach.[READ]Unfortunately,thisleavesexemplaryoranalogicalreasoningwithoutmuchofamodelforcri3calevalua3onorforteachingit.Weneedsomewayofformalizingthistypeofargumentiflawistosa3sfyitsownnorma3vecommitments.[NEXT]

7

•  Dr.DougWalton,attheUniversityofWindsor,Canada.(Dis3nguishedResearchFellowoftheCentreforResearchinReasoning,Argumenta3onandRhetoric(CRRAR))

•  [READ]•  (NotethatWaltonetal.describeotherpossibili3esforwhatlawyerscallanalogical

reasoning,includingreasoningfromclassifica3onandprecedent.Theyareallcloselyconnectedtothisschema,however.)

•  Thisismyadapta3onoftheirapproach.Solet’sseewhatitlookslike[NEXT]

8

•  ThisisnotWalton’sschemaverba3m,butmyadapta3onofit.•  ThiswillsoundpreXyabstract,butbearwithmejustasec•  [Readslidefairlyquickly]•  NotethatProposi3onAformypurposesissomelegalconclusion.Forexample,

thatthebicyclewithamotorisavehicle.Infact,let’sapplytheschematothatexampletomakeitmoreconcrete.[NEXT]

9

[READ]ButInotedamomentagothatWalton’sschemaisdefeasible,andthatcertaincri3calques3onscandefeattheconclusion.[NEXT]

10

•  Thefirstthreeques3onsarereallyaboutwhethertheproponenthascorrectlyunderstoodtheprecedents,theunderlyingpolicies,andthefactsofthiscase.Here,theopponentoftheargumentmightjustcontradictsomeofwhattheproponenthassaid.

•  (CQ1:Isittruethatautomobiles,motorcycles,andbicycles+motorsaresimilarinthewaydescribed?Hasthelawyeradvancingtheargumentclaimedasimilaritythatdoesnotexistinthecases?CQ2:Arethesimilari3esdescribedrelevantforassigningthecategory?Whatlegalpolicysurroundingtheassignmentofthevehiclecategorymakesthesesimilari3esrelevant?Werelawmakersconcernedaboutdangersposedbyvehiclespeed?Damagecausedtolawnsbyvehicleweight?Riskofaccidentsinvolvingpedestrians?Noisefromengines?CQ3:Isittruethattheearliercourtdecidedanautomobileandamotorcyclewerevehicles?Hastheproponentoftheargumentmisreadtheearliercases?(Notlikelyinthisexample,butnotunusualinmorecomplicatedsitua3ons.)

•  CQ4isinteres3ngbecauseitasksiftherearedissimilari3esbetweentheearliercasesandthisonethatmightberelevantforA?Forexample,whenthebicycle+motorispedaledwithitsengineoff,isitnotmorelikeabicyclethanamotorcycle?

•  CQ5:Hasthecourtpreviouslydecidedsomeothercasetheotherwaydespitesimilari3esbeingpresent?Forexample,maybeacourtconcludedthatabicycle+motorwithwasNOTavehicle.

•  TakentogethertheschemaandCQsinWalton’smodelpermit[NEXT]

11

•  [READ]•  (NotethatBrewerwouldprobablybelevuncomfortablebymyelisionofra3onal

withrelevance.)•  Giventhemodel,thoughIwondered[NEXT]

12

Thebigques3onhereiswhetherlawyersdothisgenerally.Naturally,Ihadtonarrowthescopetomakethisproblemtractableforresearch.ForreasonsIcanexplainduringQ&A,Ichosetoexamine:•  Trialcourtbriefsratherthanappellatebriefs.(Avoidstheselec3onproblemnoted

byPosnerandothers.Only“hardcases”gettotheappealscourts.)•  Briefsrela3ngtoonetypeoflegalissue,copyrightsummaryjudgmentmo3ons.(I

wantedtouseonetypeoflaw,becauseIfiguredapaXernmightbeapparentthereevenifitwerenotsharedwithprac33onersinanotherarea.Iknowcopyrightlaw,soI’mmorecomfortablewithit.AndCopyrightandsummaryjudgmentraiseques3onsofhard-to-applystandardsratherthanhavingsimplerules.)

•  Allreportedcasesfromapar3cular3meperiod(July2010toJune2015)toavoidthenecessityofrandomsampling.

Theexpectedresultis[NEXT]

13

•  Organizingthemintocorporaallowsmetodoquan3ta3ve,quasi-content-analysis.Gatheringcourtopinionswiththeirrelatedbriefsallowsmetodocase-studylikeexamina3onsofindividualdecisions.

[READslide]So,let’slookatwhatI’vefoundsofar[NEXT]•  (Sofar,mystudydoesnotnecessarilyincludeallthebriefsforalltheseopinions.

ThecostistoogreattodownloadthemfromtheFederalCourt’sPACERsystem.Outliersincludecaseswherethelawyershavefileddozensofbriefsleadinguptothecourt’sopinion.Idon’twantthedataskewedbythewri3ngofanypar3cularlawfirms.Goingforward,Imaylimiteachopiniontotwobriefsperside.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

Brian N. Larson, JD, PhD, assistant professor of rhetoric and technical communication 686 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0165, @rhetoricked

A Unit of the University System of Georgia An Equal Education and Employment Opportunity Institution

Lamêmechose:Lawyers’useofexemplaryreasoningargumentinpersuasivewriting

RhetoricSocietyofAmericaconference,Sunday,May29,2016,AtlantaGA

Presentationandthishandoutavailableathttp://tiny.cc/RSA2016(casesensitiveURL)

Exemplaryargumentschema(EAS)&criticalquestionsSchemaMajorPremise:Case1issimilartoCase2,inthat

bothhavefeaturesf1…fn.RelevantSimilarityPremise:Featuresf1…fnare

relevanttopropositionA.MinorPremise:PropositionAappliestoCase1.Conclusion:PropositionAappliestoCase2.

CriticalquestionsCQ1—CQ3:Arethepremisestrue?CQ4:AretheredissimilaritiesbetweenC1andC2relevanttoA?CQ5:IstheresomeothercaseC3thatisalsosimilartoC1(inthatbothhavef1…fn)exceptthatAisnotappliedinC3?

SummaryofcodingguideforpilotstudyUnitselectionIdentifyasaunitanyreference(citation)toacasefromthetextinreferencetoanissuethecourtmustdeterminerelatedtocopyrightorsummaryjudgment.(Somedefinedexceptionsinfullguide.)

Coding:Foreachcasereference…Y/N:Arefactsfromthecitedcasedescribed?Intextorcitation?(Majorpremise.)Y/N:Arefactsfromcurrentcasecompared/contrastedwithcitedcase?(Majorpremise.)Y/N:Isanyrationaleforcomparing/contrastingthesetwocasesoffered?(RSpremise.)Y/N:Istheoutcomeintheunderlyingcaseexpressedorimplied?(Minorpremise.)(Otheritemscodeddescribedinthefullguide.)

Basicstatistics• 4courtopinions&15briefscoded• 700casereferences(units)coded• Unitspertext—Mean:37,median27,sdev27.5

Summaries• 0caserefsofferedanexpressclaimof

relevance/rationale.(RSpremise,butseequestionsbelow.)

• 76caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedfactsfromthecitedcase.(Majorpremise.)

• 73caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedcomparisonoffactswithcurrentcase.(Majorpremise.)

• 77caserefs(x%)statedorimpliedoutcomein

precedentcase.(Minorpremise.)• 69exhibitedallthreeoftheprecedingfeatures.

(Expressingorimplying2of3premises.)40,or58%ofthose,werefrom3briefsinonecase(B037,B038,andB039).

• 619caserefsexhibitednoneofthethreeprecedingfeatures(neitherexpressingnorimplyinganyofthepremises).

EXAMPLESExamplefromjudge’s/lawyer’stext Larsondiscussion1.Usesofthecopyrightedworkthatstaywithinthescopeofanonexclusivelicenseareimmunizedfrominfringementsuits.JohnG.Danielson,Inc.v.Winchester-ConantProps.,Inc.,322F.3d26,41(1stCir.2003).(DocB005(PR),emphasisinoriginal.)2.Actualdamages…consistof…therevenuethatwouldhaveaccruedtoplaintiffbutfortheinfringement.Seee.g.,DataGeneralv.GrummanSys.SupportCorp.,36F.3d.1147,1171(1st.Cir.1994).(DocB006(PR),emphasisinoriginal.)

1-2.Irefertothistypeasa“borrowedrule”afterMurrayandDeSanctis.Theauthorsprobablyneedastatementof“blackletter”lawforrulestheywillapplylater,sotheychooseauthoritativecourtsandstatetheirarticulationoftherules.Thereisnoindicationofhowtheprecedentcasesturnedout.Theauthorsarenoturgingsimilaroutcomeshere,justthatthesamerulesbeapplied.Thisisthemostcommonpatternamongthecaserefs,anditdoesnotexhibitanycharacteristicsoftheEAS.

3.InDeCastro,ComputerManagementAssistantCo.(CMAC),licensedDeCastrotosellasoftwareproductthenlaterfiledcopyrightinfringementclaimsagainsthimwhenheusedhisexperiencewithCMACtomodifyadifferentcompany’ssoftwareproduct….Thecourtfoundthetwosoftwareprogramssubstantiallydifferent,eventhoughtheyservedthesamepurpose,becausethemodificationsfoundinthedefendant’sproductprovidedadifferentwayofoperatinginasimilarfashionastheoriginalproduct.Infact,eventhoughthenewprogramcontainedportionsofcodethatpotentiallycamedirectlyfromthefirstprogram,thecustomizationandmodificationscreatedadifferencebetweenthetwoproductsshowingthatanyalleged“copyingwasnotsoextensivethatitrenderedtheoffendingandcopyrightedworkssubstantiallysimilar.”…Thefactsofthiscasearenearlyidentical.Theseallegedlycopieditemsmakeupapproximatelyonepercent(1%)ofthe27,313linesofsourcecodeinHarmonix.Theitemsmakeupapproximatelyfourpercent(4%)oftheWorkbenchsourcecode.(Doc.B009(TX),emphasis,exceptunderlining,inoriginal.)

3.Here,theauthoriscomparingthefactsfromtheDeCastrocase,whichaddressedanissue—substantialsimilarity—alsobeforethiscourt.ItsummarizesthefactsinDeCastro(majorpremise)beforepivotingontheoutcomeofDeCastro(underlinedtext,minorpremise)andswitchingtoanexpositionofthefactsinthiscase(majorpremise).Notehowitstartswithspecificnamesoftheparties(DeCastroandCMAC),butthenswitchestogeneralterms(“plaintiff”and“defendant”);thismakesiteasiertoinfertheconclusion:thatthedefendant’scopyinginthiscasedidnotrisetothelevelofsubstantialsimilarity.Theargumentisanenthymemebecauseitomitstheconclusion,thoughitleaveslittledoubt.Andlikealltheexamplesofexemplaryreasoninginthispilotstudy,itisalsoenthymemicinthatitneveraddressestherelevantsimilaritypremise.Italmostseemsagiventhatiftheprecedentrequiredresolutionofthesamelegalissueasthecurrentcase,relevantsimilarityisassumed.IntheEAS,itmightbestberegardedasacriticalquestionratherthanpartoftheschema.

4.Instead,thecourtmustmakeaqualitative…judgmentaboutthecharacteroftheworkasawholeandtheimportanceofthesubstantiallysimilarportionsofthework.WhelanAssociates,Inc.v.JaslowDentalLab.,Inc.,797F.2d1222,1245(3dCir.1986);Atari,Inc.v.NorthAmericanPhillipsConsumerElectronicsCorp.,672F.2d607,618(7thCir.)…;seealsoUniversalPicturesv.HaroldLloydCorp.,162F.2d354(9thCir.1947)(findingcopyrightviolationforcopyingof20%ofplaintiff’sfilm);InrePersonalComputersandComponentsThereof,1983-84CopyrightL.Dec.(CCH)¶25,651at18,931(Int’lTradeComm’nMar.9,1984)(18%-25%identityissufficientforsubstantialsimilarity);ElsmereMusic,Inc.v.NationalBroadcastingCo.,482F.Supp.741,744(S.D.N.Y.),aff’d,623F.2d252(2dCir.1980)(similarityuncontestedbydefendantswherefournotesoutof100measuresandtwowordsoutof45wereidentical).(Doc.B011(TX),emphasisinoriginal.)

4.Muchliketheauthorsinexamples1and2,theauthorhereisseekinga“blackletter”statementofthelaw,butapparentlytheFifthCircuit(whichwouldbebindingprecedentinthisTexascase)couldnotprovidetheanswer.Consequently,theauthorcitestwoothercircuits(3rdand7th)fortheassertion.Notethatthisbriefdiscussesfactsaboutthecurrentcase(majorpremise)intextadjacenttothisexcerpt,butnotprintedhere.Theremainingthreecaserefsrepresentacomplicatedmix.Inthefirst,welearnsomefactsabouttheprecedent(majorpremise)anditsoutcome(“finding…violation,”minorpremise).Thesecondpresentsaproblem;itstatesathreshold(18-25%)thatis“sufficient,”butdoesnotsaywhetherthatcasereachedthethreshold.Theauthormayinadvertentlyhaveomittedthatfact,orshemaytacticallyhaveomitteditifthecase“wentthewrongway.”Thefinalcasereferenceistoonewheresimilaritywasuncontested,butitiscontestedhere;thecaseisinappositeandshouldnotformthebasisofanEAS.

QuestionsA.How“omitting”cananenthymemebe?IntheEAS,iftheminorpremiseisomitted(thatis,ifwedon’tknowtheoutcomeinthecitedcase),canwesaythattheEASisevidencedatall?B.ShouldtheEASberevisedtotreattherelevantsimilaritypremisenotasapremisebutasthegroundsforacriticalquestion?ButnotethepotentiallymisleadinguseoftheEASinexample4.