Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Mortimer Sellers, Stephan Kirste

Contemporary Legal Realism

  • Hanoch Dagan
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_107-1

Introduction

Almost a century after the heydays of American legal realism, its legacy is still unclear. Part of the puzzle – the dispute as to whether the so-called legal realist revolt against formalism indeed transformed American legal discourse or simply emphasized and repackaged preexisting strands of thought – is beyond the scope of this entry (compare, e.g., Kronman 1998 to Tamanaha 2010). Rather than delving into this historical debate, the task here is to identify contemporary legal realist views; in fact, it is even narrower than that. This entry does not discuss the variety of post-realist schools – notably law and economics and critical legal studies – that either claim to be or are portrayed as descendants of legal realism. Because many contemporary American schools of legal thought are (or should be) indebted to the legal realists, there is little point in trying to cover them all in one short entry.

The focus of this entry is thus on three particularly interesting...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Cohen FS (1935) Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Rev 35:809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen FS (1950) Field theory and judicial logic. Yale Law J 59:238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dagan H (2013) Reconstructing American legal realism & rethinking private law theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dagan H (2015) Doctrinal categories, legal realism, and the rule of law. Univ Pa Law Rev 163(7):1889Google Scholar
  5. Dagan H (2018) The new legal realism and the realist view of law. Law Soc Inq (forthcoming). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2963625
  6. Dagan H (n.d.) The real legacy of American legal realism. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2938349
  7. Dewey J (1924) Logical method and law. Cornell Law Rev 10:17Google Scholar
  8. Ford WK, Mertz E (2016) Introduction: translating law and social science. In: Mertz E, Ford W, Matoesian G (eds) Translating the social world for law: linguistic tools for the new legal realism, p. 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Green MS (2005) Legal realism as a theory of law. William & Mary Law Rev 46:1915Google Scholar
  10. Holmes OW (1920) The path of the law. In: Collected legal papers, vol 167. Harcourt, Brace & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Klug H, Merry SE (2016) Introduction. In: Klug H, Merry SE (eds) The new legal realism: studying law globally, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kronman AT (1998) Jurisprudential responses to legal realism. Cornell Law Rev 73:335Google Scholar
  13. Leiter B (2007) Naturalizing jurisprudence: essays on American legal realism and naturalism in legal philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leiter B (2013) Legal realisms, old and new. Univ of Valparaiso Law Rev 47:67Google Scholar
  15. Llewellyn KN (1930) A realistic jurisprudence – the next step. Columbia Law Rev 30:431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Llewellyn KN (1933) The case law system in America (ed: Gewirtz P, trans: Alsandi M). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1989)Google Scholar
  17. Llewellyn KN (1940) The normative, the legal, and the law-jobs: the problem of juristic method. Yale Law J 49:1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Llewellyn KN (1960) The common law tradition: deciding appeals. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Llewellyn KN (1962a) Some realism about realism. In: Jurisprudence: realism in theory and practice, vol 42. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Llewellyn KN (1962b) On the good, the true, the beautiful, in law. In: Jurisprudence: realism in theory and practice, vol 167. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. McCann M (2016) Preface. In: Mertz E, Macaulay S, Mitchell TW (eds) The new legal realism: translating law-and-society for today’s legal practice, p. 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mertz E (2016) Introduction: new legal realism: law and social science in the new millennium. In: Mertz E, Macaulay S, Mitchell TW (eds) The new legal realism: translating law-and-society for today’s legal practice, p. 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Mertz E, Barnes K (2016) Combining methods for a new synthesis in law and empirical research. In: Mertz E, Macaulay S, Mitchell TW (eds) The new legal realism: translating law-and-society for today’s legal practice, p. 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Rodell F (1940) Woe unto you, lawyers! Reyond & Hitchcock, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlegel JH (1995) American legal realism and empirical legal science. University of North Carolina Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaffer G (2016) New legal realism and international law. In: Klug H, Merry SE (eds) The new legal realism: studying law globally, p. 145. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Suchman MC, Mertz E (2010) Toward a new legal empiricism: empirical legal studies and new legal realism. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6:555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tamanaha BZ (2010) Beyond the formalist-realist divide: the role of politics in judging. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Twining W (2016) Legal realism and jurisprudence: ten theses. In: Mertz E, Macaulay S, Mitchell TW (eds) The new legal realism: translating law-and-society for today’s legal practice, p. 131. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Section editors and affiliations

  • Patricia Mindus
    • 1
  • Sebastian Andres Reyes Molina
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden