And be-cause rules mutate, the result of the next case is always to somegreater or lesser extent uncertain, for these are not matters of logic,but rather of practical extrapolation.
It's an interesting thought that decisions pursuant to a rule change are not matters of logic. It strikes me as a conflicting argument between legal formalism and realism where a decision is both uncertain and a matter of practical extrapolation.
But law’s daily grist is not subject to that extrinsic pressure. It isa rare day that summary judgment procedures get a fresh look, orthat the Penal Code is re-evaluated in light of the stated objectivesof criminal law.
I think this sentence highlights and sets the final pieces in place for the author's argument. In context, they suggest that even though the work done at the trial level makes up the bulk of legal work, it receives relatively little attention and critical analysis about whether or not the practices and outcomes are actually as correct and just as they could be.
Of course, all legal problems do notyield to the same approach. ‘There arespecial problems, such as questionsarising out of the Restatement or oneof the Uniform laws (in these the re-searcher turns immediately to the Re-statement in the Courts or UniformLaws, Annotated). There are otherproblems which suggest a particularapproach, as, for example, where theanswer turns on a definition (recently,in a case involving a covenant againsta “two-family dwelling’, Words &Phrases was more helpful than anyother work). In yet other cases, theIndex to Legal Periodicals yields fruit-ful law review discussions (this is par-ticularly true in new fields, such aslabor law, or fields of current, intenseactivity and change, such as civilrights). Other “special situations”will be remembered by every re-searcher,
Differences in situations like the author describes here have been frustrating for me outside of research in law school. Considering that I am still new to this, I will get to a point where I feel comfortable with an idea that I have been learning and then a slight change will warrant a completely different approach that I am not familiar with and I have to start all over again. I feel like the author's last sentence of this paragraph is really more of a euphemistic way to say that everyone will have their own mental scars from dealing with their particular "special situations."
However, in the final analysis, legalresearch is an art, not a science. Cer-tainly, the researcher must know whatbooks touch the field and the extentof their coverage, but beyond thismany factors—familiarity with thelegal principles involved, a vivid senseof analogy, a quick mind, a penetrat-ing insight, a lively imagination—maymake all the difference in the world asregards the results of different re-searchers.
This idea of legal research and practice being an art more than a science is intriguing to me. It seems to me that a great deal of what we have learned so far in LRW or our other classes has been a mixture of both. I find that my mind feels comfortable with procedures and rules that are in theory rigid and clear, but then the application to a fact pattern or a slight shift in interpreting the exact words, "make[s] all the difference in the world as regards the results..."