Search results
What is built into the judicial determination of reasonableness? To answer these and other questions, this Article presents results from the first empirical study that analyzes how reasonableness has been conceptualized, measured, and explained through judicial review of agency actions.
INTRODUCTION. Reasonable legal minds agree that reasonableness is one of the foundational concepts of American law, infiltrating everything from administrative, corporate, and constitutional law to crimes, torts, and contracts.1 Yet the concept’s importance and prevalence have not necessarily bred clarity. In fact, a recent flurry of analytic ...
People also ask
Why is reasonableness important?
What is a reasonableness standard?
Is reasonableness a normative concept?
Is reasonableness Lawless?
securities law; contract law; and the list could go on.9 In each of these well-established areas of law, reasonableness has become the core doctrine. It affords lawyers and judges, not to mention juries, the opportunity to make and specify law in particular contexts and permits the application of community standards to controversial conduct. Yet
- 451KB
- 36
- Robert Alexy
- 1.2.1 Normative Concept
- 1.2.2 Regulative Idea
- 1.4 Discourse
In order to be able to say what the reasonableness of law is, one has to know what “reasonableness” in general means. The concept of reasonableness addresses theo-retical questions, that is, questions concerning what is the case, as well as practical questions, that is, questions concerning both what ought to be done and what is good. The issue of ...
The concept of reasonableness is a concept used for the assessment of such mat-ters as actions, decisions, and persons, rules and institutions, also arguments and judgments, and it is in this respect a normative concept. As far as it addresses judgments, its function is similar to that of the concept of truth. Both are concepts used at a meta-level...
Characterizing reasonableness as an assessment concept that addresses, from a meta-level, value judgments and judgments of obligation is to describe the function of this concept, not its content. With respect to its content, the idea and the criteria of reasonableness are to be distinguished. The idea of reasonableness requires, first, that all fac...
It might be objected that concepts like those of the moral or legal point of view are so abstract that they cannot serve as a common point of comparison. The abstractness of these concepts, however, does not imply their emptiness. The moral as well as the legal point of view can be explicated by means of a procedure: that of moral and of legal disc...
- Robert Alexy
- 2009
The concept has long served to structure common-law doc-trines, from negligence to criminal law, but its rise in constitu-tional law is more recent.1 This Article aims to unpack three dimensions of constitutional reasonableness: (1) what the term reasonable means in constitutional doctrine; (2) which actors it applies to; and (3) how it is used.
May 5, 2021 · a. The Average Reasonable Person. The most basic empirical definition assumes that the reasonable person behaves how “the great mass of mankind” behaves61—that reasonableness is tantamount to conformance with “statistically prevalent norms of conduct.”62 In short, reasonable behavior is average behavior.
the reasonableness of the process or outcome of decision-making, and the ambit of decisional freedom otherwise left to a decision-maker.23 Notions of reasonableness in decision-making have long pervaded legal, political and philosophical thought. In Laws, Plato described reason as a ‘sacred and golden cord … the common law of the State’.24
