Due process questions concern what type of procedures are appropriate when the government takes away property or a privilege from an individual; the individual would argue that the government should have, for example, given them a hearing before taking away their driver's license or cutting off their Social Security benefits.
Reasoning by Analogy To reason by analogy you draw parallels between your hypothetical cases and cases that have already been decided. Since the facts and circumstances often determine the legal issue, you can often simply look to see whether the facts of this case match the facts of previous cases.
If the key facts are similar enough, then you can draw an analogy that the decision rendered in the previous case should be used in the current case as well. Likewise, if the material facts are different on key elements of a rule, then you try to distinguish the present case by arguing that it is too different from precedent in order to apply the rule.
In reasoning by analogy, it is not necessary that facts match up exactly.
If you do find a case that matches up exactly, then the argument is "on point" legalese for a slam-dunk. More likely, you will find that key facts are somewhat different.
Thus, while you can reason by analogy to bolster an argument, you will often have to use an additional means of persuasion in order to apply a rule.
As you read cases, note what facts prove an element of a rule. Key cases will frequently cite other precedents to show examples of where to draw the line. By building up a list of these examples, you have a database to show you where the line should be drawn.
In Torts, an issue arises over the standard of care that a defendant owed a plaintiff in a negligence case. The rule on the standard of care can be stated as follows: The standard of care must be that of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.
Although we have a clear statement of the rule, it's impossible to know what behavior is reasonable and prudent without knowing some examples.
Thus we build a database of examples from the case law to show where the courts have found behavior to be or not to be reasonable and prudent.
Here are two cases that illustrate the standard. Breach of Standard of Care: Operator of heavy machinery has sister ride on side of tractor. Brother's experience and knowledge of machinery should have led him to conclude that it wasn't safe.
No Standard of Care: In a drive-through bank, a car suddenly starts to back up and defendant throws car into reverse and backs up without looking. He runs into another vehicle and causes damage. Even though defendant didn't look, held to be reasonable behavior because it was an emergency.
The other car would have hit him.
By building the list of examples, we begin to see what is taken into account to determine the standard of care. Prudent behavior may depend on experience and knowledge.
The circumstances of an emergency may change the standard temporarily. You can see that these simple examples serve as easy guides.
When choosing examples, try to include cases that illustrate holdings on either side of an issue. You want to see the full spectrum of situations when the rule applies and when it doesn't apply. With these examples in place, you can draw an analogy to the facts and circumstances of your hypothetical.
If there was an emergency situation in your example, you would argue that the hypothetical was analogous or not if that's your position to Wilson v. Balancing of Factors Test In the balancing test, the court literally balances the different interests to achieve a just result.
To do a balancing test, the court identifies factors to weigh in making its decision.
The factors differ according to the issue. Factors might include age, education, experience, wealth, health and intent to do harm.Practical Law UK Articles (Approx. 6 pages) Ask a question Before asking what proof on the balance of probabilities means in practice, it is helpful to know what it means in theory.
In a family case (Re B  At trial, of course, the test to be applied is the balance of probabilities. So the true question for the court to. Davenport_proof_ 2/19/ PM 80 DUKE JOURNAL OF GENDER LAW & POLICY Volume because the courts balance the fetus’s rights against the woman’s rights.
Courts, however, should not conduct a balancing test, especially with procedures like. UK decision makers can benefit from experience in overseas jurisdictions which have a similar public interest test in their FOI laws. This paper examines the operation of the public interest test in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland.
A balancing test is any judicial test in which the jurists weigh the importance of multiple factors in a legal case. Proponents of such tests argue that they allow a deeper consideration of complex issues than a bright line rule can allow.
But critics say that such tests can be used to justify any conclusion, upon which the judge might arbitrarily decide. Balancing of Competing Interests in Other State and Federal Courts.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court generates close scrutiny of its decisions when it applies a balancing test to resolve high-profile or controversial issues before it, it is not the only court that resolves issues by balancing competing interests at stake in a legal dispute.
By John R. Lott Jr., Published on 01/01/ Recommended Citation. John R. Lott Jr., What a Balancing Test Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 M d.L.