Use Of Case Study In Doctrinal Legal Research - Methodological Challenges

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:40:50.997614+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:06.94+00:00

USE OF CASE STUDY IN DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH:

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

Tharun R, LL.M. (Criminal Law), CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bengaluru, Karnataka

ABSTRACT

This term paper examines the role of case studies in doctrinal legal research, with particular attention to their applications, benefits, and the methodological challenges they bring to this traditional approach. Doctrinal legal research centers on analyzing legal principles, statutes, and judicial decisions to develop a detailed understanding of the law. While primarily theoretical, doctrinal research can gain practical depth when supplemented with case studies, as these provide concrete insights into judicial reasoning and the real-world application of legal doctrines. Through examining specific cases, researchers of how legal principles are interpreted across different scenarios, adding dimension to doctrinal findings. can develop a deeper understanding However, incorporating case studies within doctrinal research also presents unique challenges.

These include maintaining objectivity, as personal interpretation may introduce biases, and managing limitations in accessing comprehensive case data, which can restrict the depth of analysis. Furthermore, case-specific details may not always generalize well, raising concerns about the representativeness of findings. This paper identifies these methodological hurdles and proposes solutions to address them. By assessing the advantages and limitations of using case studies in doctrinal research, the paper aims to highlight their value and explore how they can enhance the depth and practical relevance of legal scholars. Keywords: Doctrinal legal research, Case studies, Methodological challenges, Judicial precedent, Legal interpretation

1. Introduction:

Doctrinal legal research is one of the most widely used methods in legal scholarship. It focuses on the analysis, interpretation, and application of legal rules and principles, primarily by examining case law, statutes, and legal texts. This research method helps scholars understand how laws function within a legal system and how judges and courts interpret these laws. The case study is a crucial tool within doctrinal research, as it allows researchers to delve deeply into specific legal issues through the lens of particular judicial decisions. By analyzing individual cases, researchers can draw broader conclusions about how legal doctrines are applied, interpreted, and evolve over time. 1 However, despite its significance, the use of case studies in doctrinal legal research presents several methodological challenges. One major issue is the selection of cases.

Legal researchers often face the problem of choosing which cases to include in their study. Landmark cases may dominate doctrinal research, but they do not always represent the diversity of legal outcomes. 2 As a result, there may be a bias in the selection process, leading to incomplete or skewed conclusions. Another challenge is the limited scope of individual case studies. Legal cases typically focus on specific issues, and while this allows for detailed analysis, it can sometimes prevent researchers from gaining a broader understanding of the legal principles at play. Moreover, relying solely on case law for doctrinal research can be problematic, as it does not always account for the influence of other legal sources, such as statutes or international norms. Despite these challenges, case studies remain indispensable in doctrinal legal research.

They offer a unique opportunity to explore the application of legal principles in real-world contexts, allowing researchers to understand how laws operate in practice. Case studies also provide a means for examining judicial reasoning, helping researchers understand the methods used by courts to interpret and apply the law. 3 Despite the challenges in using case studies, their application in doctrinal research contributes significantly to the development and understanding of legal systems. 1 Terry Hutchinson & Nigel Duncan, Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research, 17 Deakin L. Rev. 83, 84 (2012).

2 Mateusz Stephen, Using Case Studies for Research on Judicial Opinions: Some Preliminary Insights, 2019 L. & METH. 84 (Nov. 2019).

3 Supra note 1 at 88

This paper will explore the role of case studies in doctrinal legal research, analyze the methodological challenges they present, and suggest ways to overcome these issues. By addressing these challenges, scholars can improve the use of case studies in doctrinal research and enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of legal analysis.

2. The Role of Case Studies in Doctrinal Legal Research

Case studies play a significant role in doctrinal legal research by offering a focused examination of how legal principles are applied in real-world scenarios. In doctrinal research, scholars analyze case law to interpret and understand existing legal doctrines, principles, and norms. Case studies help to connect theoretical legal ideas with practical applications, making them a valuable tool for legal researchers. One key function of case studies in doctrinal research is illustrating legal principles. Legal rules often exist in abstract terms, and case studies provide concrete examples of how these rules work in practice. 4 For example, in analyzing the principle of negligence in tort law, a case study involving a car accident can demonstrate how courts apply the elements of negligence, such as duty, breach, causation, and damages.

This allows researchers to see how the law operates outside of textbooks and how judges interpret legal standards based on the facts presented in the case. See, e. g. , Donoghue v. Stevenson5, (illustrating the development of the modern law of negligence). Another important role of case studies is examining judicial reasoning. Legal research often involves analyzing how judges justify their decisions and the reasoning behind their rulings. 6 Case studies provide insight into the judicial process by revealing how courts interpret statutes, apply precedents, and consider public policy when making decisions. By examining the reasoning in a particular case, researchers can understand the rationale behind legal rulings and how judicial interpretations can evolve over time.

This is particularly important in understanding how judges use legal precedent to guide their decisions while adapting to

4 Supra note 2 at 88

5 Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.).

6 Randy J. Kozel, The Scope of Precedent, 113 Mich. L. Rev. 179, 210 (2014), available at

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24770766

changing societal values. See, e. g. , Brown v. Board of Education7, (analyzing how judicial reasoning in landmark cases shapes societal changes). Case studies are also useful for analyzing the evolution of legal doctrines. Legal doctrines are not static; they evolve as society changes, new cases are decided, and legal frameworks are updated. A case study can help track this evolution by comparing earlier rulings with more recent ones. 8 For instance, examining how courts have handled issues of privacy over the decades can show how the legal understanding of privacy has changed in response to technological advancements and societal attitudes. See, e. g. , Katz v. United States9, (exploring the evolving interpretation of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment). Moreover, case studies provide valuable insights into the consistency and application of legal principles.

By studying a series of related cases, researchers can observe patterns in how courts apply the law. This helps to assess whether legal doctrines are consistently applied across different courts or if there are variations in interpretation. This consistency is essential for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring fairness in judicial outcomes. See, e. g. , R. v. Cunningham10, (examining the concept of recklessness in criminal law and its application in real cases). The case studies are integral to doctrinal legal research because they help to clarify legal principles, reveal judicial reasoning, trace the evolution of doctrines, and assess consistency in legal rulings. By examining real-world cases, researchers gain a deeper understanding of how the law functions in practice, beyond what is written in statutes or academic texts.

3. Methodological Challenges in Using Case Studies

While case studies are undeniably valuable in doctrinal legal research, their application is not without challenges. These challenges stem from various methodological concerns that can impact the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the findings. Understanding and addressing these issues is essential for ensuring that case study-based research remains both reliable and valid. The following subsections highlight some of the key challenges researchers face when

7 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

8 Supra note 2 at 89

9 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

10 R. v. Cunningham, [1957] 2 Q.B. 396 (C.A.).

utilizing case studies in doctrinal legal research, namely selection bias, the limited scope of analysis, an overemphasis on judicial precedent, and the complexity of legal interpretation.

3.1. Selection Bias

Selection bias occurs when researchers choose cases that do not accurately represent the full spectrum of relevant legal situations, leading to skewed or unbalanced conclusions. In the context of doctrinal legal research, case studies are often used to explore how legal rules are applied by courts. However, the cases selected for study might not always provide a complete or fair picture of how a legal principle functions across various contexts. This bias can significantly affect the validity and reliability of research findings. 11 One of the main causes of selection bias in legal research is the tendency to focus on landmark cases or high-profile decisions. These cases are often seen as the most important or influential, but they might not reflect the ordinary or day-to-day application of the law.

For example, when studying a particular legal doctrine, researchers might focus primarily on Supreme Court rulings, assuming these cases represent the best example of legal reasoning. 12 However, the decisions made by lower courts, which might involve more common issues, are just as important in shaping the law, yet they may not always make it into the selection process for study. This overemphasis on landmark cases can lead to several problems. First, it creates a distorted view of the law, as it presents an idealized or simplified version of how legal rules are applied. Landmark cases often involve complex issues that may not be present in smaller, more routine cases. As a result, conclusions drawn from these cases might not apply well to the broader legal context, where facts and judicial reasoning may differ.

Second, selection bias can lead to underrepresentation of certain legal perspectives, particularly those that might not have received significant attention in higher courts. For example, a researcher studying the principle of “negligence” might focus on high-profile cases involving major companies, neglecting the many smaller cases in which the principle is applied to 11 David Collier, Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias, American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, at 28 (1995). 12 Dirk Leuffen, Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-N Research, in Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach 145, 150 (2007).

everyday individuals. This bias can create gaps in legal understanding, limiting the scope of research findings. To minimize selection bias, researchers should aim to include a diverse range of cases. This means incorporating not just landmark or high-profile cases but also those from lower courts, varying jurisdictions, and different time periods. By expanding the pool of cases studied, researchers can ensure a more comprehensive and accurate analysis of the legal principles they are investigating.13 Additionally, researchers should be mindful of the contextual relevance of the cases they select, ensuring they reflect the full range of situations in which a legal doctrine might be applied.

3.2. Limited Scope of Analysis

One of the significant challenges when using case studies in doctrinal legal research is the limited scope of analysis. Case studies often focus on specific legal issues or individual cases, which may not fully capture the breadth of legal principles or the diversity of judicial interpretations within a particular area of law. This narrow focus can lead to incomplete or skewed conclusions about how legal doctrines operate in a broader context. For instance, when a researcher examines only landmark or widely recognized cases, they might miss out on how courts have dealt with similar legal issues in less high-profile cases. Landmark cases, although important, are often fact-specific and may not reflect the various ways in which a particular legal principle is applied in everyday legal matters.

As a result, case studies might overemphasize particular judicial perspectives or ignore the practical challenges faced by courts in routine legal proceedings. 14 Moreover, the limited scope of case studies can fail to account for regional or contextual variations in how legal doctrines are interpreted. Courts in different jurisdictions or courts dealing with cases at different levels of the judicial hierarchy (e. g. , lower courts vs. appellate courts) might interpret the same legal rule differently, yet case studies often focus on a single

13 Supra note 10 at 32

14 S. N. Jain, Legal Research and Methodology, 14 J. Indian L. Inst. 487, 490 (1972), JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950155

judicial interpretation. This lack of diversity in cases studied can limit a researcher’s understanding of the full application of the law.15 To mitigate this issue, researchers can broaden their case study approach by including cases from different jurisdictions or lower courts, which can offer a more complete view of how legal principles are applied across various contexts. Additionally, combining case studies with other research methods, such as doctrinal analysis of statutes and secondary legal sources, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the law.

3.3. Overemphasis on Judicial Precedent

One of the key challenges in using case studies for doctrinal legal research is the overemphasis on judicial precedent. In doctrinal research, case studies often focus on judicial decisions to understand how legal principles are applied. While judicial precedent plays an essential role in shaping the law, relying too heavily on case law can present several limitations that affect the overall understanding of legal principles. Judicial precedent, or stare decisis, refers to the principle that courts should follow previous rulings when deciding similar cases. It ensures consistency in the law and provides predictability. However, this reliance on past decisions can narrow the scope of legal research. Doctrinal research that prioritizes judicial precedent may ignore other important sources of law, such as statutory provisions, administrative regulations, and evolving societal norms.

16 As a result, researchers may fail to capture the broader picture of how law is shaped and applied. For instance, many doctrinal legal studies focus on landmark cases, which are often highprofile decisions made by appellate courts or supreme courts. These cases are influential because they set legal standards, but they do not always reflect the full range of judicial thought or the diversity of legal issues that exist in lower courts. Consequently, focusing exclusively on these significant rulings can lead to a skewed understanding of the law, one that is overly centered on a narrow set of judicial views. 17 15 Mojeed Alabi, Methodological Concerns in Contemporary Legal Research: A Ruse? , at 255 (Jan. 2009). 16 Randy J. Kozel, Stare Decisis in the Second-Best World, 103 Calif. L. Rev. 1139, 1155 (2015), JSTOR, http://www. jstor. org/stable/24758539

17 Supra note 6 at 200

Moreover, judicial decisions can be influenced by factors beyond legal reasoning, such as political considerations, public opinion, or the personal biases of judges. While doctrinal research tends to treat judicial decisions as neutral and objective, the reality is that judicial reasoning is often shaped by these external influences. As a result, an overemphasis on case law might present an incomplete or even misleading picture of how the law operates in practice. 18 Additionally, an excessive focus on judicial precedent can lead to the misapplication of outdated legal principles. The law evolves in response to social changes, technological advancements, and new understandings of justice. While previous rulings may have been appropriate at the time, they may no longer be suitable given modern developments.

Failing to consider these changes in legal research can result in a reliance on outdated legal reasoning that does not account for current realities. 19 To address this challenge, researchers should balance case study analysis with other forms of legal research, such as legislative history, academic commentary, and comparative analysis. By diversifying their sources, researchers can avoid the limitations of overemphasizing judicial precedent and gain a more nuanced understanding of the law.

3.4. Complexity in Legal Interpretation

Legal interpretation can often be a complex task for researchers, especially when analyzing cases that involve intricate reasoning or ambiguous legal terms. The law is not always straightforward; it involves layers of historical context, legal precedents, and policy considerations that may not be immediately clear. This complexity presents challenges for doctrinal legal research, particularly when attempting to simplify judicial reasoning or when interpreting legal concepts that require specialized knowledge. 20 One significant challenge in interpreting legal decisions is understanding how courts apply 18 John C. Gardner, Judicial Precedent in the Making of International Public Law, 17 J. Comp. Legis. & Int’l L. 251, 254 (1935), JSTOR, http://www. jstor. org/stable/753540 19 Randy J. Kozel, Stare Decisis in the Second-Best World, 103 Calif. L. Rev. 1139, 1162 (2015), JSTOR, http://www.

jstor. org/stable/24758539

20 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 418 (1899),

https://doi.org/10.2307/1321531

legal principles to diverse factual scenarios. 21 For example, a case may involve multiple legal issues, such as contractual interpretation, constitutional rights, or tortious liability, with the court balancing competing interests. The reasoning behind the court’s judgment might involve subtle distinctions in the interpretation of statutes or the application of principles developed over time. As a result, a researcher may find it difficult to isolate a single, clear-cut rule of law from the case, leading to confusion when attempting to apply that rule to other situations. Another difficulty is the language used in judicial opinions. Courts often use complex, formal language that may not be easily accessible to those who are not legal professionals.

22 For instance, terms like “mens rea,” “actus reus,” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” can be challenging to interpret without a strong understanding of legal doctrine. Additionally, legal opinions may rely on precedents that are themselves difficult to interpret, further complicating the researcher’s ability to draw clear conclusions. This specialized language and reliance on prior rulings create a barrier for both new students of law and even experienced researchers when trying to explain or critique decisions in a way that is understandable to a broader audience. Moreover, courts may interpret the same legal provisions differently based on the context of the case. This variability in judicial interpretation can be influenced by factors such as the specific facts of the case, the ideological leanings of the judges, or the changing societal values at the time.

For example, in constitutional law, the interpretation of rights can evolve as societal views shift. 23 A case that involves issues like freedom of speech may be decided differently in one era compared to another due to the changing attitudes towards individual liberties. This further complicates the task of extracting a fixed legal rule from case law. To overcome these challenges, researchers must take care to fully understand the legal and factual context of the case, paying attention to the specific terms used and how they have been interpreted by the court. Simplifying the complex reasoning requires not just a technical understanding of the law but also the ability to distill it into understandable concepts that can be applied in other contexts. 21 David O. Brink, Legal Theory, Legal Interpretation, and Judicial Review, 17 Philosophy & Public Affairs 105,

120 (1988), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265179

22 Id at 130

23 Supra note 20 at 419

4. Advantages of Using Case Studies Despite the Challenges

Despite the methodological challenges outlined earlier, case studies remain an essential tool in doctrinal legal research. They offer numerous advantages that significantly contribute to the understanding of legal principles and the development of legal doctrines. Below are some key advantages:

4.1. Enhancing Practical Understanding of the Law

One of the primary benefits of using case studies in doctrinal legal research is their ability to provide a practical understanding of how legal rules are applied. Case studies illustrate how courts deal with real-life situations and apply legal doctrines to specific facts. This approach enables researchers to see the law in action, as opposed to merely studying abstract legal concepts. By examining actual court decisions, researchers gain insight into how judges interpret and enforce legal principles within the context of social, economic, and political realities.24 For example, a case study examining the application of the principle of “mens rea” (guilty mind) in criminal law allows researchers to understand how courts distinguish between different levels of intent in specific cases, helping to clarify the complexity of legal concepts in real-life situations.

4.2. Identifying Legal Trends and Shifts in Judicial Thinking

Case studies allow researchers to track the evolution of legal doctrines and identify emerging trends in the law. By examining multiple cases over time, researchers can observe how judicial reasoning changes and how laws adapt to shifting societal values. For instance, the gradual shift in judicial interpretation of human rights law, particularly in the context of freedom of speech or privacy, can be traced through a series of landmark cases. 25 This ability to recognize patterns and shifts in the application of the law is crucial for legal researchers who aim to predict future developments. By identifying these trends, case studies 24 Leonard G. Boonin, The Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Legal Reasoning, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, vol. 49, 437 (1963), JSTOR, http://www. jstor. org/stable/23677624 25 Azul A.

Aguiar-Aguilar, Understanding the Judiciary from the Inside: The Legal Culture of Judges in Mexico, The Justice System Journal, vol. 43, no. 4, at 580 (2022), https://www. jstor. org/stable/27224833, accessed Nov. 7, 2024.

help researchers understand the direction in which the law is moving, enabling them to analyze and anticipate the impact of legal reforms or changes in societal norms.

4.3. Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice

Another significant advantage of case studies is that they bridge the gap between theoretical legal concepts and their practical application. Legal theory often discusses principles in an abstract, general sense, but case studies provide concrete examples that bring these principles to life. This is particularly helpful for law students and researchers who are learning how to apply legal theory in practice.26 For example, a legal researcher studying tort law may read about negligence in textbooks, but examining a specific case involving negligence (e.g., a car accident case) allows them to see how courts apply the theory of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Through such case studies, the abstract concepts of law are connected to real-world situations, helping researchers and students better understand the complexities of the legal system.

4.4. Promoting Critical Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Case studies also encourage critical analysis and legal reasoning. By studying cases, researchers are not only analyzing the decisions made by judges but also assessing the reasoning behind these decisions. This practice helps researchers develop critical thinking skills by questioning the legal reasoning used in the case and evaluating whether the decision was just and well-reasoned. 27 For instance, researchers might examine a case where a court has made a controversial decision and analyze whether the judge’s interpretation of the law aligns with existing legal principles or represents a departure from established norms. This critical evaluation fosters a deeper understanding of the law and enhances the ability to argue legal points effectively. 26 Rodney E.

Stanley, Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: The Use of Case Study Research for a Perilous Issue in Public Administration, Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 27, no. 1, at 114 (2003), http://www. jstor. org/stable/3381258 27 E. E. Dais, Legal Reasoning and Value Ambivalence, Logique et Analyse, vol. 14, no. 53/54, at 24 (1971), http://www. jstor. org/stable/44074431

4.5. Providing Accessible and Tangible Legal Examples

Lastly, case studies provide accessible and tangible examples of legal principles in action. These examples are often easier to understand and relate to than theoretical discussions, particularly for students and novice researchers. Case studies offer straightforward narratives of legal conflicts, which are often easier to grasp than abstract legal theories. The use of real cases makes the law more relatable, enabling researchers to apply legal reasoning to actual events and decisions.28 In sum, despite the challenges of using case studies in doctrinal legal research, their advantages are undeniable. They provide valuable insights into legal practice, highlight trends and shifts in judicial thinking, bridge theory and practice, foster critical analysis, and offer tangible examples of legal principles. These benefits make case studies an indispensable tool for any legal researcher.

5. Conclusion

Case studies are an essential methodological tool in doctrinal legal research. They allow researchers to delve into specific cases to examine how legal principles are applied in practice, providing concrete examples that illustrate the workings of legal doctrines in real-world scenarios. However, despite their value, case studies present several challenges that must be navigated carefully to ensure the reliability and comprehensiveness of doctrinal research. One of the major challenges in using case studies is selection bias. As highlighted in the paper, doctrinal research often focuses on landmark cases that are well-known and widely cited. While these cases are crucial for understanding legal principles, an over-reliance on them can lead to a skewed view of how the law operates in practice.

Landmark cases are often exceptional and may not reflect the broader spectrum of legal decisions made in less high-profile cases. To overcome this issue, researchers should aim to include a diverse range of cases in their study. This includes selecting cases from different jurisdictions, lower courts, and periods, allowing for a more representative analysis of legal doctrines and their application. 28Kenneth W. Abbott et al. , The Concept of Legalization, International Organization, vol. 54, no. 3, at 410 (2000), http://www. jstor. org/stable/2601339

Another challenge is the limited scope of case studies. While individual cases provide valuable insights into specific legal issues, they often focus on narrow aspects of the law. This limited perspective can make it difficult to draw broader conclusions about the development or consistency of legal principles. To address this challenge, researchers should combine case study analysis with other research methods, such as comparative legal studies or the examination of statutes. By integrating these additional perspectives, researchers can expand the scope of their analysis and gain a more well-rounded understanding of legal doctrines. The paper also discussed the overemphasis on judicial precedent in doctrinal legal research.

While case law is central to the study of law, an exclusive focus on judicial decisions can overlook other factors, such as legislative changes or societal shifts, that influence the law. These external influences may not be immediately evident in case law but are crucial for understanding how legal doctrines evolve. Therefore, researchers must adopt a more comprehensive approach by considering the broader context in which judicial decisions are made. This can involve looking at legislative reforms, international law, or societal trends that may affect how legal principles are interpreted and applied. Additionally, the complexity of legal reasoning in cases can pose a significant challenge for researchers. Court decisions often involve intricate legal reasoning that can be difficult to unpack, especially for complex or multifaceted cases.

This complexity can hinder researchers’ ability to fully understand and explain the reasoning behind judicial decisions. To address this, researchers should break down legal reasoning into simpler, more digestible components, allowing for a clearer understanding of the legal principles at play. By doing so, researchers can enhance the clarity of their analysis and ensure that complex judgments are accessible and relevant to doctrinal research. Despite these challenges, case studies remain a valuable and indispensable tool in doctrinal legal research. They help researchers understand how legal principles are applied and interpreted in practice, offering insights into judicial reasoning, legal trends, and the evolution of doctrines.

By carefully addressing the methodological challenges associated with case study research, such as selection bias, limited scope, reliance on judicial precedent, and complexity in legal reasoning, researchers can produce more reliable and comprehensive doctrinal analyses. In conclusion, when used thoughtfully and strategically, case studies can continue to be a vital tool for legal scholars seeking to understand and interpret the law.

References: Books

1. S.R. Myneni, Legal Research Methodology (2nd ed. 2020).

2. Prof. Ishwar Bhat, Idea and Methods of Legal Research (2nd ed. 2017).

3. Dr. Rhea Roy Mammen, Handbook on Legal Research Methodology (for Law Students

and Research Scholars) (2nd ed. 2019). Journal/ Articles:

1. Terry Hutchinson & Nigel Duncan, Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal

Research, 17 Deakin L. Rev. 83, (2012).

2. Mateusz Stępień, Using Case Studies for Research on Judicial Opinions: Some

Preliminary Insights, 2019 L. & METH. (Nov. 2019)

3. S. N. Jain, Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research, J. Indian L. Inst. 24, no. 2/3,

(1982).

4. Dirk Leuffen, Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-N Research, in Research Design

in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach, (2007).

5. David Collier, Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of

Selection Bias, American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, (1995).

6. Kenneth W. Abbott et al., The Concept of Legalization, International Organization, vol.

54, no. 3, (2000).

7. S. N. Jain, Legal Research and Methodology, 14 J. Indian L. Inst, (1972), JSTOR.

8. Randy J. Kozel, Stare Decisis in the Second-Best World, 103 Calif. L. Rev. 1139, (2015),

JSTOR.