Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Recherche juridique doctrinale× | Analyse de la jurisprudence× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Méthodes de terrain | Méthodes de terrain |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) | Medieval English common law; academic formalisation 19th–20th century |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin | Common law tradition (England); systematised in Anglo-American jurisprudence |
| Type≠ | Legal-analytical research method | Qualitative legal research method |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 | Hutchinson, T. (2010). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455227689 |
| Alias | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship | judicial decision analysis, legal case analysis, jurisprudential analysis, case-based legal research |
| Apparentées | 6 | 6 |
| Résumé≠ | Doctrinal legal research is the foundational methodology of legal scholarship. It systematically identifies, reads, and analyses authoritative legal sources — statutes, case law, constitutional texts, and regulations — to describe, explain, and critique the content and internal logic of legal doctrine. By working within the accepted hierarchy of legal sources, it answers the question 'What is the law?' with analytical rigour and interpretive precision, producing descriptions of settled doctrine and arguments for how ambiguities should be resolved. | Case law analysis is a systematic method for examining judicial decisions to identify binding legal rules, evolving doctrines, and interpretive trends. Rooted in the common law tradition of stare decisis, it requires the researcher to locate the ratio decidendi — the binding reasoning — of each decision, distinguish it from obiter dicta, and trace how that reasoning has been applied, distinguished, or overruled across subsequent cases. The method is fundamental to legal scholarship, litigation strategy, and law reform research. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|