Lawsuits are rare and catastrophic experiences for the vast majority of men, and even when the catastrophe ensues, the controversy relates most often not to the law, but to the facts. In countless litigations, the law Is so clear that judges have no discretion.
Interpretation
Lawsuits are infrequent and often devastating, with conflicts usually stemming from factual disputes rather than legal ambiguities.
This quote by Benjamin N. Cardozo emphasizes that while lawsuits are uncommon and can lead to significant disruption in people's lives, the core issues at stake frequently concern the facts of the case rather than complex legal interpretations. Cardozo highlights the stark reality that many legal disputes are straightforward in terms of law, leaving little room for judges to exercise discretion, which contrasts sharply with the emotional and personal turmoil commonly associated with legal battles.
In practice
In a legal seminar discussing the nature of lawsuits, this quote illustrates the emotional toll of litigation.
History or custom or social utility or some compelling sense of justice or sometimes perhaps a semi-intuitive apprehension of the pervading spirit of our law must come to the rescue of the anxious judge and tell him where to go.
The Constitution overrides a statute, but a statute, if consistent with the Constitution, overrides the law of judges. In this sense, judge-made law is secondary and subordinate to the law that is made by legislators.
There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them, and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion.
Law never is, but is always about to be.
The judge is not the knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.
In law, as in every other branch of knowledge, the truths given by induction tend to form the premises for new deductions. The lawyers and the judges of successive generations do not repeat for themselves the process of verification any more than most of us repeat the demonstrations of the truths of astronomy or physics.
Reaching a conclusion has to start with what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.
Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from the failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.
The constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.
Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess.
I start out with the assumption that a lawyer in a criminal case is going to be incompetent - substantially so. I find my assumption to be rarely wrong. Yet society starts out with the very opposite assumption.
A person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not give rise to probable cause to search that person.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.