Elmer’s Rule: A Jurisprudential Dialogue
Northwestern University - School of Law
November 16, 2010
Iowa Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 5, 1974-75
Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 10-81
Cardozo wrote of Riggs v. Palmer that this case that two analytical paths pointed in different directions and the judges selected the path that seemed better to lead to “justice”. Dworkin has claimed that the case demonstrates the triumph of certain “principles” over what are called “rules of law”. Taylor has argued that there was no “law” at all about murderers inheriting from testators before the actual decision in Riggs, and that consequently the decision itself was the only “law” that affected Elmer. All of these suggest that the decision in Riggs was largely unpredictable and therefore must have come as something of a surprise. But the notions of surprise and unpredictability raise a far more basic issue: what business does a court have in surprising anyone? Shouldn’t a court fulfill people’s expectations of the law? Shouldn’t a court behave as predictably as it possibly can?
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
Keywords: Jurisprudence, Rules of Law, Elmer’s Rule, Riggs v. Palmer, Positivism, Judicial Decisions, Predictive Theory of Law
JEL Classification: K10, K40, K49Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 17, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.532 seconds