Lasting Legal Legacies: Early English Legal Ideas and Later Caselaw Development During the Industrial Revolution

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Review of Law & Economics Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1515/rle-2021-0070
Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell
{"title":"Lasting Legal Legacies: Early English Legal Ideas and Later Caselaw Development During the Industrial Revolution","authors":"Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell","doi":"10.1515/rle-2021-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We explore English legal evolution by empirically investigating the relevance of late-medieval and early-modern legal ideas for caselaw development during the Industrial Revolution, an era of unprecedented societal change. To ascertain the prevalence of specific legal ideas in pre-1765 case reports, we draw on existing topic model estimates. We measure the relevance of those ideas for subsequent caselaw development using post-1764 citations to the pre-1765 cases. We show that deliberations on court cases heard between 1765 and 1870 systematically invoked a broad range of preexisting legal ideas. Strikingly, the strongest effects are exhibited by Coke-style analysis and precedent-based thought. A key legacy of early English caselaw therefore lay in bestowing modes of reasoning. The reason why a subset of preexisting legal ideas does not exert a detectable effect is that those ideas were generally no longer key to post-1764 legal disputes. Our approach to investigating legal development could be applied in many other contexts.","PeriodicalId":44795,"journal":{"name":"Review of Law & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Law & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2021-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract We explore English legal evolution by empirically investigating the relevance of late-medieval and early-modern legal ideas for caselaw development during the Industrial Revolution, an era of unprecedented societal change. To ascertain the prevalence of specific legal ideas in pre-1765 case reports, we draw on existing topic model estimates. We measure the relevance of those ideas for subsequent caselaw development using post-1764 citations to the pre-1765 cases. We show that deliberations on court cases heard between 1765 and 1870 systematically invoked a broad range of preexisting legal ideas. Strikingly, the strongest effects are exhibited by Coke-style analysis and precedent-based thought. A key legacy of early English caselaw therefore lay in bestowing modes of reasoning. The reason why a subset of preexisting legal ideas does not exert a detectable effect is that those ideas were generally no longer key to post-1764 legal disputes. Our approach to investigating legal development could be applied in many other contexts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
持久的法律遗产:工业革命时期早期英国法律观念与后来判例法的发展
摘要本文通过实证研究中世纪晚期和近代早期法律思想与工业革命时期判例法发展的相关性,探讨英国法律的演变。工业革命是一个前所未有的社会变革时代。为了确定在1765年以前的案例报告中具体法律思想的流行程度,我们借鉴了现有的主题模型估计。我们使用1764年后对1765年前案例的引用来衡量这些想法与随后判例法发展的相关性。我们表明,对1765年至1870年间审理的法庭案件的审议系统地援引了广泛的预先存在的法律思想。引人注目的是,最强烈的影响表现在可口可乐式的分析和基于先例的思考上。因此,早期英国判例法的一个重要遗产在于赋予推理模式。一部分先前存在的法律观念之所以没有产生可察觉的影响,是因为这些观念通常不再是1764年后法律纠纷的关键。我们调查法律发展的方法可以适用于许多其他情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
The Disavowal of Decisionism: Politically Motivated Exits from the U.S. Courts of Appeals On the Role of Sales Taxes for Efficient Compensation of Property Loss Under Strict Liability Broadband Internet and Crime Unraveling the Peltzman Effect: The Significance of Agent’s Type Do US State Breach Notification Laws Decrease Firm Data Breaches?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1