coveringlaw

Coveringlaw is a theoretical term used in legal philosophy and jurisprudence to describe a class of explanatory models that aim to explain and predict legal outcomes by subsuming concrete cases under general laws, rules, or principles, together with pertinent facts. The essential idea is that a decision can be derived from an initial condition set (the facts) and a covering law (a statutory provision, common-law rule, or constitutional principle). The model emphasizes deductive reasoning: from general law and facts, one derives the result.

In practice, coveringlaw is used to analyze case law by identifying the governing rule and the relevant facts, then showing how the outcome follows through established legal patterns. It serves as a framework for understanding how legal systems organize normative guidance around recurring situations and helps clarify why certain rules are applied in particular instances.

Origins of the concept lie in the broader covering-law model of explanation found in philosophy, which describes how laws can account for regularities. Some scholars have adapted this idea to legal reasoning, treating statutes and precedents as covering laws that structure judicial decision making and argumentation.

Critics argue that the coveringlaw approach can oversimplify legal reasoning, understate the role of interpretation, policy considerations, and judicial discretion, and struggle with novel or complex cases that resist straightforward generalizations. Despite criticisms, the framework remains a reference point for discussions about how law generalizes from rules to rulings.

See also: covering-law model, legal reasoning, statutory interpretation, precedent, jurisprudence.