ABSTRACT
The mental occurrences involved in reasoning with rules cannot be verified by observations since they refer to operations of the mind. In the application of legal rules, it is often very easy to overlook the process of reasoning especially where the inference is so obvious that it is hardly noticeable. Opinions generally contain statements of preexisting rules of law as well as formulations of the inferences drawn. These formulations are distinct from the actual inferring and yet do not purport to describe the process of reasoning. Inference-guidance devices are obviously designed for use in cases subsequent to their promulgation; in other words, to follow a rule evidently involves a preexisting rule. Courts must thus consider the contemplated consequences of decisions and their compatibility with the rules, the interests and final commitments which they generally uphold. Although the consequences of a decision are innumerable, just as the facts of a case to be decided, they are not all ‘material’.
