Understanding Legal Rule Functions

Categorizing the function of legal rules: Chronology

One of the best ways to know that you are understanding legal rules is to test whether you can accurately categorize them according to function.

In terms of function, there’s the basic chronology of the case: procedure, merits, defenses, remedies. More on the chronology functions here. That’s the first level of understanding how legal rules work.

Categorizing the Function of Legal Rules: Beyond Chronology

Most of the time, however, you can be more specific than this. You can add a second, more specific, description of the function. It’s easier to do this as you encounter more and more legal rules and start to see their similarities.

Here are some examples:

(1) A party may recover attorney fees and costs on appeal when granted by applicable law. Pruitt v. Douglas Cty., 116 Wash. App. 547, 550, 66 P.3d 1111, 1114 (2003).

This is a rule about remedies. Can we be more specific? What kinds of remedy rules are there? Well, there are damages and equitable remedies (such as injunctions). Damages also have two types: compensatory and punitive. This rule is about compensatory damages.

(2) Waste may be defined to be any act or omission of duty by a tenant of land which does a lasting injury to the freehold, tends to the permanent loss of the owner of the fee, or to destroy or lessen the value of the inheritance, or to destroy the identity of the property, or impair the evidence of title. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 104 Wis. 7, 9, 79 N.W. 738, 739 (1899).

This is a primary rule defining the cause of action for waste. So it’s a merits rule. More specifically, because it gives the primary rule, it’s a rule creating the primary test (or prima facie case).

(3) While any change in a building upon the premises may constitute technical waste, it will not be enjoined in equity when it clearly appears that the change will be, in effect, a meliorating change that rather improves the inheritance than injures it. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 104 Wis. 7, 9, 79 N.W. 738, 739 (1899).

This is a rule about remedies. Can we be more specific? The rule discusses enjoining and equity. It’s a rule about equitable remedies.

Thinking about rule functions is the type of precise, critical thinking that is crucial for understanding the law well. Here’s an exercise where you can practice and a key to check your answers. Note, you’re not looking for magic words; the question is whether you can accurately describe the function in just a couple of words.