We sketch in this paper two interpretive accounts of what the legal expression "petty motives" means, the first according to the standard semantic explanation of content, the second according to an inferential explanation of content. Such an inferential explanation is based on a pragmatic account of semantics and a deontic scorekeeping model of adjudication inspired by the philosophical work of Robert Brandom. The resulting model of how a given legal provision is applied to a particular set of facts is what we call “Judicial Scorekeeping”
One aspiration of an analytic jurisprudential theory is to provide an account of how legal obligatio...
This Note outlines the history and development of the petty offense exception and the Supreme Court\...
In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balanci...
According to the Italian law, having acted for petty motives constitutes an aggravating circumstance...
Factfinders in civil cases must often make a constellation of decisions, such as assigning responsib...
In this contribution I explain how Alexy’s ideas about weighing and balancing can be translated and ...
This Article presents an evidentiary theory of substantive criminal law according to which sanctions...
Engaging with the literature on courts and judicial politics, this article argues that one should d...
The thesis focuses on Judicial Review of Legislation, exploring—with the aid of Robert Brandom’s inf...
This essay criticizes Dworkin’s and Greenberg’s interpretivism using one concrete example, namely, t...
Abstract: In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing a...
This paper discusses the functions of deductive justification in ideal reconstructions of judicial r...
This article considers why judiciaries appear to be reluctant to institutionally legitimate judicial...
This Article sets forth an interpretive theory of adjudicative lawmaking according to which, under c...
A short (about 1,000 words) overview of adjudication, describing the standard view (judges should ju...
One aspiration of an analytic jurisprudential theory is to provide an account of how legal obligatio...
This Note outlines the history and development of the petty offense exception and the Supreme Court\...
In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balanci...
According to the Italian law, having acted for petty motives constitutes an aggravating circumstance...
Factfinders in civil cases must often make a constellation of decisions, such as assigning responsib...
In this contribution I explain how Alexy’s ideas about weighing and balancing can be translated and ...
This Article presents an evidentiary theory of substantive criminal law according to which sanctions...
Engaging with the literature on courts and judicial politics, this article argues that one should d...
The thesis focuses on Judicial Review of Legislation, exploring—with the aid of Robert Brandom’s inf...
This essay criticizes Dworkin’s and Greenberg’s interpretivism using one concrete example, namely, t...
Abstract: In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing a...
This paper discusses the functions of deductive justification in ideal reconstructions of judicial r...
This article considers why judiciaries appear to be reluctant to institutionally legitimate judicial...
This Article sets forth an interpretive theory of adjudicative lawmaking according to which, under c...
A short (about 1,000 words) overview of adjudication, describing the standard view (judges should ju...
One aspiration of an analytic jurisprudential theory is to provide an account of how legal obligatio...
This Note outlines the history and development of the petty offense exception and the Supreme Court\...
In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balanci...