Traditional Versus Economic Analysis: Evidence from Cardozo and Posner Torts Opinions

Authors

Lawrence A. Cunningham, George Washington University Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2010

Status

Accepted

Abstract

This Article contributes a new approach and evidence to the longstanding debate concerning the relative merits of traditional legal analysis compared to contemporary economic analysis of law. It evaluates prominent opinions of two judicial exemplars of the contending conceptions, the traditionalist Benjamin Cardozo and the economist Richard Posner, in torts, the field where economic analysis has greatest impact. Comparative critique of their opinions appearing in current torts casebooks, where they are the most ubiquitous judges, provides evidence that traditional legal analysis is a more capacious and persuasive basis of justification than contemporary economic analysis of law.

SSRN Link

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1574926

Recommended Citation

Lawrence A. Cunningham, Traditional Versus Economic Analysis: Evidence from Cardozo and Posner Torts Opinions, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 667 (2010).