Legal reasoning is commonly thought of as being based on either rules or analogies. More specifically, there is ongoing debate regarding whether precedential reasoning is best characterized as rule-based or analogical. This article continues that work by comparing recent and representative approaches from each camp, namely, Stevens's analogical model and the “rule-based” model of Horty and Rigoni. In the course of the comparison improvements on each approach are suggested and the improved models serve as the basis for the ultimate evaluation. The evaluation demonstrates that the “best” approach depends on the goals one has in theorizing legal reasoning as well as the jurisprudential assumptions one is willing to make.

中文翻译：

---

AA-RM 摔跤：比较法律推理的类比方法和规则模型

法律推理通常被认为是基于规则或类比。更具体地说，关于先例推理是否最好被描述为基于规则或类比的争论一直存在。本文通过比较每个阵营的最新和代表性方法来继续这项工作，即史蒂文斯的类比模型和霍蒂和里戈尼的“基于规则”的模型。在比较过程中，提出了对每种方法的改进建议，改进的模型作为最终评估的基础。评估表明，“最佳”方法取决于人们在将法律推理理论化时的目标以及人们愿意做出的法理假设。