Legal Realism

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Launston
  • Created on: 12-05-14 17:48

1. What is the realist argument against rules have definitive outcomes?

  • There is no consensus on what rules should contain
  • The amount of rules means there is a large amount of support for both sides in a case
  • Rules are not always moral so outcomes are unfair
  • Judges will deliberately ignore some rules in favour of others
1 of 15

Other questions in this quiz

2. How do judges really decide cases?

  • They have a gut instinct to cases and find material to back this up
  • They only apply the law as it is set out in statutes
  • They choose the most moral outcome
  • The follow public policy

3. Llewellyn disagrees that the sovereign is the law-maker, who does he think decides the law?

  • Legislature
  • The Public
  • Judiciary
  • Executive

4. Who agrees with realists that 'rules are not always conclusive' but then says that 'some rules can have an agreed upon meaning'?

  • Llewellyn
  • Hart
  • Oliver Wendell-Holmes
  • Dworkin

5. According to Dworkin, where there is 'confusion about a statute or precedent, there are...?'

  • No rules for defining them
  • Right and wrong ways to read them
  • Never any conclusive answers
  • Various methods of interpretation open to the judges


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all LSR resources »