The Concept of Legal Entailment
Legal entailment is a principled way to approach the question of how legal reasoning and legal rules interact with one another throughout a legal system. Essentially, legal entailment is a rule that governs the aggregation and interaction of legal rules with factual statements. A legal entailment is generally a rule of implication: "if this fact situation, then that consequence under the law," or a rule of equivalence: "these two fact situations yield the same consequence under the law." As such, legal entailments are an important part of the doctrine common law lawyers are familiar with: stare decisis. Stare decisis is essentially a rule of entailment: "these facts are associated with the rule of decision x." Stare decisis thus operates as a precedent over the law that precedes it.
The concept of entailment has a long history. According to H.L.A . Hart, who had a great deal to say about the doctrine of precedental entailment in his classic and seminal The Concept of Law, the concept of legal entailment was used at times by canonists in the "law of writs," and was more widely adopted in the 12th century as a technique by which the Common Law came into being: As a technique, the idea of entailment allowed the development of rules under which a large number of cases are subsumed under a smaller number of rules: for example, instead of framing forty rules regarding the deceased, a court could frame two principles of fiduciary duty, and have those principles apply regardless of who the deceased was. Thus legal entailments are a tool for reducing the complexity of the law.
In the elaboration of its compatibility and transition conditions, legal entailment must rely on that same principle of abstraction that allowed for the emergence of the Common Law. Legal entailments naturally inscribe into them a context of their own, and so as they are aggregated and as they interact with other legal entailments, they also necessarily isolate themselves from their context within the legal system.
It is important to distinguish between entailment as a logical notion and entailment as a notion of legal rules. Legal entailments operate with respect to the outcomes of legal rules, whereas logical entailments operate with respect to the reference of propositional expressions.
A Brief History of Legal Entailments
Background of legal entailments
Long before legal entailments were used in computer science, English common law made use of them as a way to control the inheritance of property so that it could be kept for the benefit of a certain family. In English common law, the term of art was "entail." The idea was that the last member of the family who had the fee simple estate—the last family member to control the property—had the control extinguished upon their death and the inheritance passed in a certain direction, male line, for instance, bypassing female members of the family. English law recognized two entailments, the conservative and the liberal. The conservative entailment controlled the inheritance of lands the way I just described. The liberal entailment turned over the property to the last holder’s sole heir upon their death. The relevant point is that in either case there was a special relationship between the last recipient and their property, the law required that they convey ownership to the predetermined next heir, if there was one. From law to law, what you might consider to be the importance of the entailment was emphasized differently. In the continental civil law tradition, inheritances have been governed by codified laws for centuries. The Spanish Civil code of 1889 reads like this: Article 806 Those who are relegated into a particular order of succession are called the entailed heirs, as well as their descendants in the collateral line. Neither of them can renounce his or her share in favour of those who come after him or her in the order of succession, nor can he or she dispose of his or her estate by will nor can he or she accept any charge with the express or tacit condition that it shall be in addition to that with which he or she succeeds by law. The most important concept in legal entailments is exclusivity. There can only be one entailment. Entailments in law are hierarchical. In deciding which entailment ‘wins’ one of the entailments subsides. None can have any greater strength than any others. In a legal entailment when one entails the other one is left as limited to the circumstances in the entailment.
Modern Day Entailments and Their Use in Practice
Modern legal systems continue to utilize the principle of entailment, while adapting its application to suit contemporary legal entities and laws. In the realm of property law, for example, contemporary entails are frequently used in the context of family planning, where parents seek to preserve their estate through a carefully planned and executed transfer of ownership to their children. This approach has become increasingly popular in the modern age, where high levels of taxation and legal complexities can make the process of transferring ownership of properties to the next generation cumbersome and expensive, leaving countless properties in the hands of tax collectors and legal custodians instead of the descendants of the original owners.
Entailment is also applied in the context of business law, where it forms the basis for certain types of family businesses that are structured at the death of the original owner. In such cases, these businesses will remain bound to follow the laws of the original owner’s state or territory, as equity will not allow an entail to be broken by the burden of capital gains taxes alone. This means that family businesses, which are considered a powerful engine of economic growth in many jurisdictions, can often remain under the control of the family after the death of the founder, maintaining their vital role in their respective economies.
A particularly interesting example of the use of entailment can be found in the modern laws of Quebec, Canada, where the concept of an estate entail has been reworded to form a new legal entity. The Quebec estate entail is a version of the traditional entail system into which the local government has attempted to insert numerous modern elements. For those interested in studying the application of traditional entails in a modern legal system, a close study of estate entails may prove particularly useful.
Legal Outcomes of Entailments
A common legal issue concerns the implications of a legal entailment. This occurs when a property is bequeathed under strict conditions, usually with restrictions on further transfer to third parties. The legacy, or property subject to entailment, commonly comes with a public or private trust intended to act as guardian for the entailed property.
This complicates the free transfer of property ownership, especially if a person wishes to sell entailed property to make use of the funds elsewhere. However, restriction of entailed property can be lifted under the right conditions, and above all that the ensconced purchaser is permitted to have unencumbered ownership of the property.
The important thing to remember is that property subject to entailment becomes different from the other categories of property because it is legally restructured; such estates are separated in both a physical and legal sense. This can sometimes lead to disputes over the legal classification of property, especially between heirs.
Such conflicts, disputes and challenges to claims of entailment can result in lengthy and costly litigations. Overall, these legal matters can lead to significant legal implications, not least of which includes long term financial consequences.
Examples of Legal Entailments
Schmidt v. Chevron Pipeline Co.
This case highlights the direct link between legal entailment and the development of legislative action. After a pipeline operated by Chevron had a leak, Chevron sent inspectors to clean up the site, but did not inform the landowner until three months later. The landowner sued Chevron for the cleanup costs and for emotional distress caused by the odor of the spilled gas. Chevron was found liable, but appealed, contending that the decision not to inform the landowner sooner was within business judgment and did not support claims of negligence and emotional distress.
The appellate court agreed with Chevron. In an opinion by Judge Brown, the Court held that an oil company’s decision to withhold information from a landowner about a pipeline spill was within the exercise of business judgment and not the type of legal malfeasance that would prohibit Chevron from arguing that it owed no duty to inform of the spill. The court found that even a heightened desirability of disclosure in this case would be outweighed by competing public policies that would be affected negatively if the oil company had an affirmative duty to share information with all landowners who might be affected by a spill. This case exemplifies how legal results can have life beyond the litigation and create shifts in law and policy, as was the case when the Texas Legislature amended the Oil and Gas Code to ensure greater notification to landowners if they are affected by a pipeline spill.
Edwards v. Board of Police Commissioners
This case involves a legal entailment in the context of civil service. The plaintiff was involved in an auto accident while he was working, and the insurance company sought repayment from the plaintiff’s "civil service pension fund" for a property damage award that was unrelated to the plaintiff’s on-duty status. The City of Houston passed an ordinance stating that pension funds could be used by the City for property damage claims against a police officer if the underlying cause of action stemmed from on-duty activities.
The plaintiff sued the City, arguing that because the City had failed to define its own duties in relation to pension funds, the City could not impose liability. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed, however, holding that the City’s failure to use the right language in writing its pension fund ordinances did not invalidate their intended purpose, which was to allow use of pension funds in certain contexts. The court held that because information published in the Code of Ordinances, such as the pension fund entitlements , was made part of the Code of Ordinances though specific "legal entailment," the City had a constitutional and statutory right to employ pension funds in the manner specified in the Code.
Employee Retirement System v. Kirkland
In this case, one of many related to the City of Houston’s retiree healthcare benefits, the plaintiff argued that the Employee Retirement System had a duty to plaintiffs despite the fact that the healthcare benefits were not included in all of the relevant summaries that the ERS prepared and distributed to retirees. The plaintiff contended that defendants’ failure to include the healthcare benefits in the various summaries created an ongoing legal duty that the ERS owed to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs chose to file suit against the City rather than the ERS, based on the argument that the statute of limitations had already run out on the ERS. While it seems like the defendant’s choice to sue the City is an example of a plaintiffs’ right to choose the particular entity they wish to pursue under what is established as the law, it is in reality a legal entailment. This is because the omission of the City when preparing the plaintiffs’ summaries triggered a duty that the plaintiffs had a right to choose to enforce through a legal system that erodes the issue of sovereign immunity. The inclusion of the option to sue the City is a legal entailment that the plaintiffs had a choice to make use of, resulting in the settlement that allowed for payment of plaintiffs’ public service pensions.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
The Court in Free Enterprise Fund involved another case of legal entailment, and one in which the Court found constitutional violations that changed long-standing federal law. In this case, two private corporations challenged the constitutionality of the PCAOB, which was created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. One core contention was that because "the PCAOB’s inspection and investigation authority is overseen by the SEC, its [inspections] must conform to [the] SEC’s rules and regulations," and because the President cannot force the SEC to comply with its own rules, the PCAOB is too independent of the President’s control to be considered constitutional. The Court used a test from the Meyer decision to determine that it was unconstitutional and unenforceable for PCAOB to be independent from Presidential oversight; however, it was able to invalidate another provision that required the PCAOB to be accountable to Congress, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable in its own right.
Comparison of Legal Entailments Across Jurisdictions
In various jurisdictions, the treatment of legal entailment can differ substantially, influencing how the justice system processes and resolves evidentiary matters. These differences may stem from cultural norms, historical evolution of legal theories, or political and social priorities.
In civilian law systems, like those in France and Germany, entailment is often expressly defined as a form of relationship between the facts that are legally relevant to a dispute and the evidence brought into the process. The principles of legal entailment serve as a guide for determining admissibility, forcing litigants to align their arguments carefully with the legal framework (and vice versa). These systems may have a strict interpretation of entailment that seeks to avoid any instance of "same issue" between the evidence and the legal elements of the dispute, requiring the evidentiary materials to almost exclusively be secondary to the compelling legal argument at hand.
Adversarial systems, such as those in the United States and Canada, often have a more fluid view of the relationship between evidence and law. Here, the focus is on the utility of the evidence and its probative value to advising fact-finding rather than on formally analyzing legal entailments. This results in a relatively informal examination of legally relevant facts to identify, in the preparatory stage of proceedings, what evidence can be used to demonstrate the necessary elements of the case.
A notable divergence on the treatment of legal entailment is present in the civil law statute of Quebec—while this is a civilian system, it exhibits an American-style approach to fact-finding and analysis. The utilitarian views on relevance and admissibility trace back to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1975, which broke with previous interpretations of legal entailment while largely maintaining the formal break-down of legal elements. In practice, this has meant that the analysis does not require new evidence when a publication does not contain a specific element (e.g., falsity) to pass the substantial equivalent test, but only requires a clear distinction of those elements to rely on previous evidence, such as judgments. This position is supported by the judgment in Mouvement la Voie du ciel v. Québec (C.A.), 2008 QCCA 251: "the question of substantial identity is a question of law that does not require any trial in fact".
Some legal systems retain the strict reliance on legal entailment due to the reduced role of evidence in establishing facts. For example, in the Iranian civil law system where factual evidence is not the primary means of establishing facts, the law is more likely to demand a tighter coupling between the evidence and the applicable law. In some Middle Eastern nations, where the justice system is based on Islamic principles, the entailed requirements for legal compliance with religious text can rely almost exclusively on the law itself.
The Future of Legal Entailments
As the legal profession continues to evolve, the future of legal entailments is likely to be shaped by a number of factors. First and foremost among these is the ongoing advent of new technologies. The continued proliferation of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools means that legal professionals will have access to increasingly sophisticated systems that can more effectively identify and analyze legal entailments.
In addition, as legal systems around the world continue to contribute more of their existing rules and regulations into the global knowledge pool, the ability to track and manage legal entailments across jurisdictions will become even more important. This will require new tools that can navigate the complexities of an increasingly globalized legal environment .
At the same time, changes in legislation and emerging societal values can also have a significant impact on the way in which legal entailments are understood and applied. For example, the ongoing debate over data ownership and privacy is likely to significantly impact the ways in which personal data is regulated and managed, which in turn will alter the landscape for legal entitlement across jurisdictions.
Ultimately, the future of legal entailments will be shaped by a complex interplay of technological, social, and legal developments. As the legal profession continues to adapt to these changes, it will be essential for practitioners to remain informed about current and future trends in order to ensure that they are effectively able to advise their clients on the nature and implications of legal entailments.
+ There are no comments
Add yours