The Langdell problem: Historicizing the century of historiography, 1906-2000s

Law and History Review

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 277-337

  Kimball, Bruce A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58449122707     PISSN: 07382480     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4141648     Document Type: Review

References (357)

1. Quotation is from Stephen A. Siegel, "John Chipman Gray and the Moral Basis of Classical Legal Thought," Iowa Law Review 86 (2001): 1515n9. See Daniel R. Coquillette, Daniel Hamilton, and Mary Beth Basile, Typescripts on file of extensive interviews conducted with deans of selected law schools in Fall 2002, Modem Legal Pedagogy Project, funded by the Spencer Foundation and located at Harvard Law School
2. The following tentative interpretation draws partly from these essays, in which citations to many of the original sources may be found: Bruce A. Kimball, "'Warn Students That I Entertain Heretical Opinions, Which They Are Not to Take as Law': The Inception of Case Method Teaching in the Classrooms of the Early C. C. Langdell, 1870-1883," Law and History Review 17 (1999): 57-140
3. Kimball, "Young Christopher Langdell: The Formation of an Educational Reformer 1826-1854," Journal of Legal Education 52 (June 2002): 189-239
4. R. Blake Brown and Bruce A. Kimball, "When Holmes Borrowed from Langdell: The 'Ultra Legal' Formalism and Public Policy of Northern Securities (1904)," American Journal of Legal History 45 (2001 [published in 2004]): 278-321
5. Kimball and R. Blake Brown, "'The Highest Legal Ability in the Country': Langdell on Wall Street, 1855-1870," forthcoming in Law and Social Inquiry (Spring 2004)
6. Quotation is from "C. C. Langdell . . . Finding Aid," Harvard Law School Library, Special Collections (typescript removed from circulation). See now Bruce A. Kimball and Molly McGinn Shapiro, "Finding Guide to the Papers of Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906)," Harvard Law School Library, Special Collections (Fall 2003). I wish to thank Molly McGinn Shapiro for her meticulous work, David Warrington and David Ferris for their cooperation and help, and the James Barr Ames Foundation for its support of this analysis of the Langdell Papers
7. See Appendix 1
8. Quotations are, respectively, from: "Prof. Christopher C. Langdell," New York Tribune (7 July 1906): 7
9. "Dean Langdell," Boston Daily Advertiser (7 July 1906): 4
10. "Professor Langdell Is Dead," Boston Evening Record (6 July 1906): 1
11. "Prof. Langdell, " Boston Herald (7 July 1906): 6
12. Eugene Wambaugh, "Professor Langdell and the Study of Law," Nation 83 (12 July 1906): 30
13. Reprinted as Eugene Wambaugh, "Professor Langdell - A View of His Career," Harvard Law Review 20 (1906): 1-4
14. Unless otherwise noted, information about the careers of Wambaugh and other HLS graduates below is drawn from Charles Warren, History of the Harvard Law School and of Early Legal Conditions in America (New York: Lewis, 1908), vol. 3
15. The Centennial History of the Harvard Law School, 1817-1917 (Cambridge: Harvard Law School Assoc., 1918)
16. Quinquennial Catalogue of the Law School of Harvard University, 1817-1934, ed. Guy H. Holliday (Cambridge: Harvard Law School, 1934)
17. Frederick Pollock, "The Late Professor Langdell," Law Quarterly Review 88 (1906): 353-55
18. C. C. Langdell, "Memoranda Concerning Law School Students, September, 1870, to July, 1873," Bound Manuscript Collection, Harvard Law School Library, p. 29, #118, 7 Oct. 1870
19. "Pow Wow Club Records and Case Reports of Supreme Court, 1870-1882," bound manuscript in Pow Wow Club Records, Harvard Law School Library, pp. 7, 18
20. Austen G. Fox, "Professor Langdell - His Personal Influence," Harvard Law Review 20 (1906): 7-8
21. See, too, Warren, Harvard Law School, 2:373
22. Samuel F. Batchelder, "Christopher C. Langdell," Green Bag 18 (1906): 440
23. James Barr Ames, "Professor Langdell - His Services to Legal Education," Harvard Law Review 20 (1906): 12-13
24. See, too, [James Barr Ames,] "Christopher C. Langdell," Harvard Graduates'Magazine 15 (1906): 209-12
25. Jeremiah Smith, "Professor Langdell-His Student Life," Harvard Law Review 20 (1906): 5-6
26. Jeremiah Smith, "Christopher Columbus Langdell '45," in Bulletin of the Phillips Exeter Academy (Sept. 1906): 27-32
27. Jeremiah Smith, "Prof. Christopher C. Langdell," Proceedings of the New Hampshire Bar Association 2 (n.s.) (1904-1908): 340-48
28. "Obituaries [Jeremiah Smith]," Bulletin of the Phillips Exeter Academy (January 1922): 18-19. For providing information about Smith, I am grateful to Edouard Desrochers, Archivist, Phillips Exeter Academy Library
29. Steve Sheppard, ed., The History of Legal Education in the United States (Pasadena: Salem Press, 1999), 1:523
30. Joseph H. Beale, Jr., "Professor Langdell - His Later Teaching Days," Harvard Law Review 20 (1906): 9-11
31. Centennial History, vi, 34-35
32. Sheppard, ed., The History of Legal Education, 1: 26
33. "Manuscript Class Book of the Class of 1851 of Harvard College," Harvard University Archives, 168-69
34. Minutes of Vestry Meetings of Christ Church, 1883-1907, in Vestry Minutes of Christ Church, Cambridge, 1862-1904
35. and Vestry Minutes of Christ Church, Cambridge, 1905-1927, Archives of Christ Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
36. Samuel F. Batchelder, "C. C. Langdell, Iconoclast," in Bits of Harvard History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 323n
37. Batchelder, "C. C. Langdell, Iconoclast," 323n
38. Batchelder, "Christopher C. Langdell," 440-41
39. "Manuscript and Research Notes," Samuel F. Batchelder Papers, Cambridge Historical Society, Cambridge, Mass., box 5. I am grateful to Aurore Eaton, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Society, for her exceptional cooperation with the investigation of Batchelder's papers during Fall 2000
40. See Emory Washburn, "Harvard Law School," (c.1877), 44 pp., in Samuel F. Batchelder Papers, Cambridge Historical Society box 2, folder 14
41. Letter from George O. Shattuck to Charles W. Eliot (17 December 1869)
42. Charles W. Eliot Papers, Harvard University Archives, box 66
43. Letter from Victor Morawetz to James B. Thayer (15 April 1882)
44. James Bradley Thayer Papers, Harvard Law School Library, box 20, f. 1
45. Joseph H. Choate, "Address," in Harvard Law School Association, Report of the Ninth Annual Meeting at Cambridge, June 25, 1895, in Especial Honor of Christopher Columbus Langdell (Boston: Harvard Law School Assoc., 1895), 63
46. Franklin G. Fessenden, "Rebirth of the Harvard Law School," Harvard Law Review 33 (1920): 513
47. Letter from Joseph H. Choate to Samuel F. Batchelder (18 July 1906)
48. Letter from Joseph H. Choate to Charles Warren (18 Oct. 1907), Charles Warren Papers, Harvard Law School Library, box 37
49. Batchelder, "Christopher C. Langdell," 439
50. Cf. Samuel F. Batchelder, Unpaginated sheets of draft biography of C. C. Langdell, in Batchelder Papers, box 5, f. 2
51. Batchelder, "Christopher C. Langdell," 439-41
52. William Schofield, "Christopher Columbus Langdell," American Law Register 55 o.s., 46 n.s. (1907): 273-96
53. Warren, Harvard Law School, 2: 455, 455-60
54. Schofield, "Christopher Columbus Langdell," 277-78
55. John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution And Laws Of The United States Of America, 12th edition, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1868), s.v. Alimony, Condonation, Divorce, Nullity of Marriage, Promise of Marriage, and Separation a Mensa et Thoro
56. These articles are not mentioned again until Schofield's reference is cited by William P. LaPiana, Logic and Experience: The Origin of Modern American Legal Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 191n78
57. LaPiana, Logic and Experience, 191n75
58. See, too, W. Burlette Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," Georgia Law Review 32 (1997): 15n43
59. Ames's essay is "Christopher Columbus Langdell, 1826-1906," 465-89, in Great American Lawyers, ed. William D. Lewis (Philadelphia: John C. Wilson, 1909), vol. 8
60. reprinted in Ames, Lectures on Legal History and Miscellaneous Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913), 467-82
61. Letter from Hannah Warner to Mildred C. Warren of New Boston, New Hampshire, quoted in Frances A. Atwood in Old Folks' Day, New Boston, N.H., June 13, 1907, Thirteenth Reunion (Manchester, N.H.: John B. Clarke, 1908), 11-12
62. Ames, "Christopher Columbus Langdell, 1826-1906," 469
63. Program of "Performance for Exhibition," Harvard College, 16 October 1849, in "Charles F. Dunbar Personal and Professional Correspondence," Harvard University Archives, 1 box, f
64. H-L Correspondence, Professional; Gorham, "Diary," 8 Sept. 1849. Unfortunately, the notes and sources for Ames's undocumented essay have not been located, nor could a file be found regarding the Langdell essay among the editor's papers at the University of Pennsylvania. I am grateful to Cynthia Arkin, Associate Director of Special Collections at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Chris Rooney, Research Assistant, University of Pennsylvania Archives, for their help in investigating their holdings in February 2001. I am also grateful to R. Blake Brown for searching for papers by James Barr Ames in the archives at Harvard, the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Boston Athenaeum, the Cambridge Historical Society, and the New Hampshire Historical Society, as well as on the World-Wide Web
65. Kuhn, Administrator v. Webster & Others, 78 Mass. (12 Gray) 3 (1858)
66. Delafield v. Parish 1 Redf.Surr. 1 (N.Y. Surrogate's Court 1857)
67. Quotations are from Ames, "Christopher Columbus Langdell, 1826-1906," 476, 481, 483
68. Quotation is from Schofield, "Christopher Columbus Langdell," 277
69. Warren, Harvard Law School, 2:175-202, 302-31, 354-460
70. Quotations are from ibid., 2:302-3
71. [Letters from 1907 and 1908 giving Reminiscences of Harvard Law School], Charles Warren Papers, box 37
72. These letters were apparently not consulted or cited again in the twentieth century until LaPiana, Logic and Experience, 14, 51-53, 70, 191n78
73. Quotations are, respectively, from Warren, Harvard Law School, 2:333, 335, 132, 388
74. See ibid., 419-60
75. Josef Redlich, The Common Law and the Case Method in American University Law Schools (New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1914), Bulletin No. 8, pp. 3-4, 26. Quotations are from pp. 5, 4
76. Quotations are, respectively, from Letter from Charles Noble Gregory (Dean of George Washington Univ.) to Ezra Ripley Thayer (4 Oct. 1913)
77. and Letter from Ezra Ripley Thayer to Charles Noble Gregory (8 Oct. 1913), Ezra Ripley Thayer Papers, Harvard Law School Library, box 9, f. 2. See similar letters in folder
78. Redlich, The Common Law and the Case Method, 9-21
79. In 1940 the Carnegie Foundation gave to Harvard Law School Library the original German text and successive revisions and four translations of Redlich's report. Alfred Z. Reed, who commissioned Redlich's study for the Carnegie Foundation, reviewed and revised each translation, and it was he who inserted subtitles and highlighted as distinctive this new thesis, although Redlich's interpretation appears in the original German text. "Redlich Bulletin, [Version] V. Translation B., Reed's revision of A." Typescript, annotated in pencil. Pages 36-38 in Josef Redlich, "Case teaching system in the law schools of American universities and the common law," 1914, Typewritten with MS notes, in Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library
80. In support, Redlich quoted Ames, although the quotation does not identify any shift in purpose; and Redlich himself noted parenthetically in his draft that "(quotation does not seem correct)." "Redlich Bulletin, [Version] V. Translation B., Reed's revision of A." Typescript, annotated in pencil. Pages 39-40 in Josef Redlich, "Case teaching system in the law schools of American universities and the common law," 1914, Typewritten with MS notes, in Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library
81. Letter from Frank W. Grinnell to Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (24 Feb. 1925)
82. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Papers, Harvard Law School Library, #913. All subsequent citations to the Chafee Papers are to microfilm reel 51
83. Quotation is from Letter from Frank W. Grinnell to Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (17 April 1918), Chafee Papers, #957
84. See Letter from Chafee to Joseph N. Walsh (17 Oct. 1928), #872
85. Letter from Chafee to Frank W Grinnell (14 Nov. 1928), #879
86. Letter from Chafee to Frank W Grinnell (4 March 1931), #863, in Chafee Papers
87. See, for example, Samuel Williston, "Christopher Columbus Langdell, Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933), 10:585-86
88. Robert Stevens, "Law Schools and Legal Education, 1879-1979: Lectures in Honor of 100 Years of Valparaiso Law School," Valparaiso University Law Review 14 (1980): 218nn172-73
89. Donald B. King, Legal Education for the 21st Century (Buffalo: Fred B. Rothman, 1999), 548
90. The indirect influence is even more widespread, as seen in key theses of the Centennial History being invoked from Robert Stevens's work in, for example, Michael H. Hoeflich, "Law & Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell," American Journal of Legal History 30 (1986): 95, 95n2
91. Mary B. MacManamon, "The History of the Civil Procedure Course: A Study in Evolving Pedagogy," Arizona State Law Journal 30 (1998): 417
92. Centennial History, 170-74
93. Letters in Chafee Papers, #839-989
94. See Donald L. Smith, Zechariah Chafee, Jr.: Defender of Liberty and Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986)
95. Letter from Joseph H. Beale to Roscoe Pound (20 Dec. 1916), Chafee Papers, #989
96. Quotations are, respectively, from Centennial History, 9, 37, 81
97. Commensurately, the appended biography of Ames (pp. 175-89) exceeds that of Langdell (pp. 223-36.)
98. "Notes," Harvard Law Review 1 (1887-88): 100; 5 (1891-92): 89-90, 147, 238
99. William A. Keener, "Address," in Harvard Law School Association, Report of the Ninth Annual Meeting at Cambridge, June 25, 1895, in Especial Honor of Christopher Columbus Langdell (Boston: Harvard Law School Assoc., 1895), 77
100. William A. Keener, A Selection of Cases on the Law of Quasi-Contracts (Cambridge, Mass.: Charles W. Sever, 1888), p. vi
101. Book Note, "William A. Keener, Selections on Contracts . . . ," Harvard Law Review 5 (1892): 355
102. The scholarly history of Columbia University Law School initially cites and repeats Redlich's interpretation on behalf of Keener, who led "the revolution of 1891" at Columbia Law School. Julius Goebel, Jr., A History of the School of Law, Columbia University (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 140-41. But in the end, Goebel draws back from attributing originality to Keener, saying "whether or not [these purposes] originated with Keener, to Keener undoubtedly is due the credit for their widespread acceptance" (155)
103. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "Oration," in Harvard Law School Association, Report of the Organization and of the First General Meeting, 1886 (Boston: Harvard Law School Association, 1887), 39. Emphasis added
104. Letter from Joseph D. Brannan to James B. Thayer (3 June 1897)
105. James Bradley Thayer Papers, Harvard Law School Library, box 17, f. 2
106. Louis D. Brandeis, "The Harvard Law School," Green Bag 1 (1889): 19
107. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Walter Bond Douglas (31 Jan. 1878)
108. Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, ed. Melvin I. Urofsky and David W. Levy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1971), 1:21-22
109. Beale, "His Later Teaching Days," 10
110. Beale, "Papers and Discussion Concerning the Redlich Report," American Law School Review 4 (1916): 106-7
111. Joseph H. Beale, Jr., "Langdell, Gray, Thayer, and Ames: Their Contribution to the Study and Teaching of Law," New York University Law Quarterly Review 8 (1931): 394
112. See Frank L. Ellsworth, Law on the Midway: The Founding of the University of Chicago Law School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 49-79
113. [Joseph H. Beale,] Untitled draft of history of HLS since 1870, Chafee Papers, #906
114. See Samuel Williston, Life and Law: An Autobiography (Boston: Little Brown, 1940), 134, 187
115. Quotations are from "Dean of Harvard Law School Dead," Boston Herald (9 Jan. 1910): 14
116. Julian W. Mack, "James Barr Ames - His Personal Influence," Harvard Law Review 23 (1910): 337
117. See Samuel Williston, "James Barr Ames - His Services to Legal Education," Harvard Law Review 23 (1910): 332-33
118. Quotation is from George W. Kirchwey, "James Barr Ames," Columbia Law Review 10 (1910): 188
119. See Charles W. Eliot, "James Barr Ames," Harvard Law Review 23 (1910): 322
120. William D. Lewis, "James Barr Ames, 1846-1869," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 58 (1909-1910): 289-92
121. Letter from Alfred Z. Reed to Ezra Ripley Thayer (2 Oct. 1913)
122. and Letter from Ezra R. Thayer to Alfred Z. Reed (3 Nov. 1913), Ezra Ripley Thayer Papers, box 9, f. 2
123. Goebel, A History of the School of Law, Columbia University, 140-44
124. Letter from Harlan F. Stone to Ezra R. Thayer (27 Oct. 1913), Ezra Ripley Thayer Papers, box 9, f. 2
125. See letters exchanged between Harlan F. Stone and Ezra R. Thayer in early October, 1913, box 9, f. 2
126. That Redlich's attribution to Keener of a shift in purpose was instrumental or convenient is suggested by the fact that, later in his report, Redlich dropped the distinction and omitted further reference to Keener, such as in discussing the "True Significance of Langdell's Invention in the Development of Legal Science," 54-59
127. Moreover, the question of whether Redlich gave too much notice or praise to Harvard did, in fact, become a point of contention among Alfred Z. Reed and Henry Pritchett of the Carnegie Foundation and Dean Ezra Ripley Thayer and President Abbott L. Lowell at Harvard. See correspondence among these four individuals in Ezra Ripley Thayer Papers, box 8, f. 8
128. Beale, "Langdell, Gray, Thayer, and Ames," 394
129. At least one of the eulogists initiating this attribution shared Beale's affection for Ames. See Letter from Julian Mack to Charles W. Eliot (19 Sept. 1898), Charles W. Eliot Papers, box 139a, f. 1394
130. Letter from Joseph H. Choate to Charles Warren (18 Oct. 1907)
131. Simeon Baldwin, Report of the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association 17 (1894), 375-77
132. Simeon E. Baldwin, "Education for the Bar in the United States [reviewing the Redlich Report]," American Law School Review 4 (1915): 13
133. "Baldwin led the resistance to the case method within the American Bar Association." Paul D. Carrington, "Hail! Langdell!" Law and Social Inquiry 20 (1995): 738
134. Wirt A. Cate, Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Secession and Reunion (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1935), 123
135. See also Thomas H. English, Emory University 1915-1965: A Semicentennial History (Atlanta: Emory University, 1966), 164-65
136. Daniel J. Meador, "Lamar and the Law at the University of Mississippi," Mississippi Law Journal 34 (1963): 240
137. Claims on behalf of other putative originators of case method antedating Langdell are discussed in Appendix 2 below
138. Alfred Z. Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law (New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1921), Bulletin no. 15, p. 372
139. Fessenden, "Rebirth," 493
140. "Letter to Henry S. Pritchett" (13 April 1915), Correspondence of Charles W. Eliot, Small Manuscript Collection, Harvard Law School Library
141. Charles W. Eliot, "Langdell and the Law School," Harvard Law Review 33 (1920): 521
142. Ames, "His Services to Legal Education," 13
143. Fox, "His Personal Influence," 7
144. Fessenden, "Rebirth," 503
145. Frank W. Grinnell, "An Unpublished Conversation with President Eliot at the Beginning of Langdell's Teaching," ([c.1929]; typescript, 1 page), Biographical File of Christopher Columbus Langdell, Harvard University Archives
146. This remarkable incident has not previously been reported in the literature. Cf. Fessenden, "Rebirth," 503
147. Charles W. Eliot, Banquet in Honor of Hon. Franklin G. Fessenden, Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts . . . (Boston: Boston University Law School Assoc., 1917), 21
148. Letters between Eliot and Fessenden (19 March 1919, 28 Mar 1919, 23 April 1919, 12 May 1919, 15 July 1919, 22 July 1919)
149. Charles W. Eliot Papers, Harvard University Archives, box 382. I am grateful to Pedro Reyes for searching in the papers of Charles W. Eliot and Franklin G. Fessenden for further materials and correspondence about their essays. Eliot's article, scarcely mentioned in their correspondence, was evidently written as a shorter companion to Fessenden's piece
150. Quotations are, respectively, from Fessenden, "Rebirth," 498, 500, 508
151. Quotations are, respectively, from ibid., 502, 514
152. Letter from Charles W. Eliot to Franklin G. Fessenden (19 Mar 1919)
153. Charles W. Eliot Papers, Harvard University Archives, box 382, f. A-J
154. Samuel Williston, however, seemed to shift his view subsequently. In one prominent article, he credited the invention of case method entirely to Langdell, saying merely that Keener's and Ames's "success in applying [Langdell's] method did much to popularize it." "Christopher Columbus Langdell," 586
155. In his autobiography, Williston's view of whether, how, and when case method teaching was fully developed is somewhat ambiguous, as he appears to try to spread the credit evenly among Langdell, Ames, Keener, James B. Thayer, and John C. Gray. Williston, Life and Law, 74, 76, 132, 199-201
156. In his role as the faculty supervisor of the Harvard Law Review, Beale had to arrange for the publication of the two essays and so was well aware of them. In the surviving correspondence in this regard, Fessenden's references to Beale (to whom he did not send a draft of his essay) are distinctly unfriendly. Letters from Fessenden to Eliot (18 July 1919, 22 July 1919)
157. Letter from Samuel E. Morison to Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (27 June 1928), Chafee Papers, #893
158. [Beale,] Untitled draft of history of HLS since 1870, Chafee Papers, #904
159. Letter from Samuel E. Morison to Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (27 June 1927), Chafee Papers, #893
160. [Beale,] Untitled draft of narrative history of HLS since 1870, #906
161. Roscoe Pound, "The Law School, 1817-1929," 475, 479, in Samuel E. Morison, The Development of Harvard University since the Inauguration of President Eliot 1869-1929 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930)
162. This anomalous mention of Langdell's "resentment" seems to refer to an incident described in Williston, Life and Law, 138
163. On "Bealism," see Jerome Frank, Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Brentano's, 1930), 48-56
164. Williston's 1933 article in the Dictionary of American Biography credited Langdell with virtually all of the salutary reforms at HLS and made no mention of realism
165. In 1940 Williston qualified or obviated much of that credit while endorsing the shift to pragmatic, contextual, and realist jurisprudence. Cf. Williston, "Christopher Columbus Langdell," 585-86
166. Williston, Life and Law, 199-210
167. Beale, "Langdell, Gray, Thayer, and Ames," 385-95
168. See Gordon, "The Case for (and against) Harvard," Michigan Law Review 93 (1995): 1235
169. William W. Wiecek, The Lost World of Classical Legal Thought: Law and Ideology in America, 1886-1937 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 4-14, 92-93
170. An example of this point is discussed in B. A. Kimball, "The Life of Langdell Has Not Been Logic; It Has Been Experience," Law and History Review 17 (1999): 156
171. Batchelder, "Wanted! - College Characters," in Bits of Harvard History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 262, 296, 287-88
172. Batchelder, "C. C. Langdell, Iconoclast," 303
173. "Article on Langdell in CENTENNIAL HISTORY HARV. LAW SCHOOL . . . ," and Annotated copy of "Christopher C. Langdell [1906]," Batchelder Papers, box 5, f. 2, box 6, f. 6
174. Samuel F. Batchelder, Annotated copy of "Christopher C. Langdell [1906]," Batchelder Papers, box 6, f. 6, p. 443
175. Batchelder, "C. C. Langdell, Iconoclast," 318n1; see also 312, 312n1
176. The legacy of Batchelder's inconsistency can be seen in a recent essay citing evidence supporting Batchelder's 1906 version on behalf of the view that Langdell's "method was Socratic" as well as evidence supporting "the conventional view" of a dogmatic and didactic Langdell. Curtis W. Nyquist, "A Contract Tale from the Crypt," Houston Law Review 30 (1993): 1231n149, 1232n151
177. Similarly, another scholar writes, "Contemporary opinions of Langdell's teaching were mixed, but predominantly negative: most of his students thought him boring and his Socratic technique incomprehensible." Wiecek, The Lost World of Classical Legal Thought, 93-94
178. Letter from Joseph H. Beale to Samuel F. Batchelder (14 November 1922), Batchelder Papers, box 4, f. 5
179. Laura Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927-1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 3
180. Williston's Statement reveals how by 1940 even those regarded as "rigorously a Langdellian Legal scientist" by current scholars had been forced to accommodate themselves to Realist arguments. Quotation is from Siegel, "John Chipman Gray," 1591
181. Langdell, Summary of the Law of Contracts, 20-21
182. [Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.], "[Review of] A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts . . . by C. C. Langdell . . . 1879 [and] Principles of the English Law of Contract
183. By Sir William R. Anson," American Law Review 14 (1880): 234
184. Quotations are, respectively, from: Steven J. Burton, "Introduction," p. 1, in The Path of the Law and Its Influence: The Legacy of O. W. Holmes, Jr., ed. Burton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
185. Richard Posner quoted in Albert W. Alschuler, Law without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 92
186. See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1881), 1
187. Saul Touster, "Holmes a Hundred Years Ago: The Common Law and Legal Theory," Hofstra Law Review 10 (1982): 675
188. See Felix Frankfurter, ed., Mr. Justice Holmes (New York: Coward-McCann, 1931)
189. G. Edward White, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3, 171
190. See, for example, Harry C. Shriver, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: His Book Notices and Uncollected Letters and Papers (New York: Central Book, 1936)
191. LaPiana, Logic and Experience, 3, 172n4
192. Jerome Frank, Law and the Modern Mind, with an introduction by Julian W. Mack (New York: Brentano's, 1930)
193. Already in 1974, this work was identified by Daedalus as one of the classics of the twentieth century. Bruce A. Ackerman, "[Review of] Law and the Modern Mind by Jerome Frank," Daedalus 103 (1974): 119-27
194. Jerome Frank, "Why Not a Clinical Lawyer-School?" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 81 (1933): 907-8
195. Quotations are, respectively, from ibid., 911, 921, 919
196. See Centennial History, 226-27
197. Jerome Frank, "A Plea for Lawyer-Schools," Yale Law Journal 56 (1947): 1303-4
198. See, for example, Preble Stolz, "Clinical Experience in American Legal Education: Why Has It Failed?" Clinical Education and the Law School of the Future, Resource Papers of the Conference [on law students in court] Held . . . at the University of Chicago, ed. Edmund W. Kitch (Chicago: University of Chicago Law School, 1969), 72
199. Bernard Schwartz, Main Currents in American Legal Thought (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 1993), 346nn518-19
200. See the acute criticism of Frank's interpretation in Anthony Chase, "The Birth of the Modem Law School," American Journal of Legal History 23 (1979): 330-31
201. Mark DeWolfe Howe, "Introduction," p. xiiin5, in Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881), edited by Howe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963)
202. J. W. Burrow, "Holmes in his Intellectual Milieu," in The Legacy Of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ed. Robert W. Gordon (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 23-24
203. Thomas Grey, "Holmes and Legal Pragmatism," Stanford Law Review 41 (1989): 788n6
204. Philip Wiener, Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 26, 152
205. Holmes, "Oration," 39-40
206. See Patrick J. Kelley, "A Critical Analysis of Holmes's Theory of Contract," Notre Dame Law Review 75 (2000): 1756-57
207. Brown and Kimball, "When Holmes Borrowed from Langdell," sect. I
208. HLS, Faculty Minutes, Microfilm ed., 26 June 1871, 24 June 1872
209. Stevens, "Law Schools and Legal Education, 1879-1979," 211
210. Quotations are from Wiener, Evolution, 153, 238, 232, 235n2
211. Cf. Batchelder, "Langdell, Iconoclast," 318n1
212. Batchelder, "Christopher C. Langdell," 440
213. James W. Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers (Boston: Little, Brown, 1950), v, 261-69
214. Hurst then becomes the authority for Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2d ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 613n20
215. Quotations are from Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974), 6, 13, 12, 97-98
216. Grant Gilmore, The Ages of American Law (New York: Yale University Press, 1977), 42
217. Gilmore, Death of Contract, 107-10
218. Arthur E. Sutherland, The Law at Harvard: A History of Men and Ideas, 1817-1967 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 162-205
219. Similar reliance upon the Sutherland sediment as bedrock authority - while nevertheless rejecting Gilmore's interpretation - is found in the introduction to the republication of Langdell's first casebook: Thomas G. Barnes, "Introduction" to Christopher Columbus Langdell, Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts (reprint of the 1871 edition, Birmingham, Al.: Legal Classics Library, 1983), 27-28
220. Gilmore, Ages of American Law, 124-26
221. Gilmore also makes passing reference to Robert E. Stevens, "Two Cheers for 1870: The American Law School," Perspectives in American History 5 (1871): 403-548
222. Quotations are from Gilmore, Death of Contract, 13
223. Langdell, A Summary of Equity Pleading (1877), iii
224. [Holmes,] "[Review of] A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts," 234
225. Gilmore's books, or excerpts thereof, were assigned annually in the courses in American Legal History taught by Morton Horwitz, even though Horwitz was rather critical in reviewing Gilmore's Ages of American Law in Buffalo Law Review 27 (1978): 47-53, asserting that "Gilmore's generation is thus forever locked in the particular dogmas of the way it has chosen to define the vices of formalism" (53)
226. Quotations are, respectively, from Hoeflich, "Law & Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell," 121n100
227. and Nyquist, "A Contract Tale from the Crypt," 1232n151
228. See E. Allan Farnsworth, "Contracts Scholarship in the Age of Anthology," University of Michigan Law Review 85 (1987): 1412
229. Kevin M. Teeven, A History of the Anglo-American Common Law of Contract (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1990), 218
230. Dennis Patterson, "Langdell's Legacy," in "Symposium, Reconsidering Grant Gilmore's The Death of Contract," Northwestern University Law Review 90 (Fall 1995): 200n22, 201
231. Wiecek, The Lost World of Classical Legal Thought . . . , 93
232. Allen D. Boyer, "Book Review, Logic and Experience . . . by William LaPiana," Cornell Law Review 80 (1995): 371n53
233. Marcia Speziale, "Langdell's Concept of Law as Science: The Beginning of Antiformalism in American Legal Theory," Vermont Law Review 5 (1980): 1-2
234. Mathias W. Reimann, "Holmes's Common Law and German Legal Science," in The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ed. Robert W. Gordon (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 2674n166
235. Boyer, "Book Review, Logic and Experience," 363n9
236. Patterson, "Langdell's Legacy," 197n3
237. Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," 8n21
238. Kelley, "A Critical Analysis of Holmes's Theory of Contract," 1703n97
239. Quotations are, respectively, from Speziale, "Langdell's Concept of Law as Science," 20, 37, 29. Emphasis added
240. See Roberto M. Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986)
241. Grey, "Holmes and Legal Pragmatism," 787-870
242. Michael S. Moore, "The Interpretive Turn in Modern Theory: A Turn for the Worse?" Stanford Law Review 41 (1989): 871-957
243. See Hoeflich, "Law & Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell," 95-121
244. Howard Schweber does not identify evidence directly linking his insightful analysis of Protestant Baconianism with Langdell, who "did not leave an extensive written record, forcing historians to rely greatly on Eliot's characterizations." See Schweber, "Before Langdell: The Roots of American Legal Science," in The History of Legal Education, ed. Sheppard, 5: 630
245. Anthony Chase, "Origins of Modern Professional Education: The Harvard Case Method Conceived as Clinical Instruction in Law," Nova Law Journal 5 (1981): 340-41
246. See Joel Seligman, The High Citadel: The Influence of Harvard Law School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978), 28-42
247. Robert Stevens, Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 36, 55, 44nn15-17
248. Gordon, "The Case for (and against) Harvard," 1241-42
249. Chase, "The Birth of the Modem Law School," 332, 336, 338, 340-41. To account for the absence of testimony from Eliot or anyone else about Eliot's determinative role, Chase maintains that Eliot "could afford the
250. Chase, "The Birth of the Modem Law School," 341-42
251. Chase, "Origins of Modern Professional Education," 330n20
252. Eliot states that experience in a law office and courtroom is the true analogue to clinical medical education in a hospital, but since a law student spending time in court "would waste his time," then "the law library . . . is the real analogue of the hospital" (quoted in Chase, "The Birth of the Modem Law School," 341-42)
253. In other words, Eliot says that legal case method is not truly analogous to clinical, medical education, but the closest that HLS comes. Chase concedes that Eliot's "indirect" analogy has created "confusion" in the minds of subsequent proponents of clinical education who have missed the point that case method was originally understood as a legal adaptation of clinical, medical education (Chase, "Origins of Modern Professional Education," 333, 335-40)
254. However, HLS professor Emory Washburn interpreted the same quotation of Eliot discussed by Chase as objecting to clinical teaching, that is, teaching by faculty in the course of professional practice. Washburn, "Harvard Law School," p. 8v
255. Jerome Frank also argued that written case reports in case-books did not reflect the experience of a legal dispute and that law schools should replace case method with the clinical model of medical education (Frank, "Why Not a Clinical Lawyer-School?" 916-17). Similarly, "clinical education" programs in current law schools operate on Frank's definition, not Chase's
256. Chase, "The Birth of the Modern Law School," 346
257. On Foucault, see p. 344
258. Quotations are, respectively, from Chase, "Origins of Modern Professional Education," 328, 355
259. Grant Gilmore, Death of Contract, 12
260. The perseverance of the dilemma and inadvertence strategy in substantive reassessment is shown by Paul D. Carrington, who expresses "gratitude to Langdell for serving a benign cause in which he may never have believed, by making a contribution that he gave no indication of understanding. . . . Langdell's [case] method was less radical and more useful than he supposed because of its utility to law teachers working in the tradition . . . of teaching law in support of constitutional democracy" ("Hail! Langdell!" 693; emphasis added). Without intending or understanding or agreeing, says Carrington, Langdell made a benign contribution by introducing case method, though it seems that Langdell was not the originator, either (735-76). In this way, Carrington's inadvertence strategy is unsatisfying because if Langdell did not intend, understand, or condone something that he did not originate, then why should the benign contribution be associated with him at all?
261. Quotation is from Patterson, "Langdell's Legacy," 198
262. See, for example, Reimann, Holmes's Common Law and German Legal Science," 256n98
263. Siegel, "John Chipman Gray," 1520-26
264. Thomas C. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," University of Pittsburgh Law Review 45 (1983): 14
265. Quotation is from ibid., 27. See 25-27, 48
266. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 4
267. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 3
268. See 40, 11n35. Nevertheless, Grey insightfully acknowledges that Holmes shared many premises of "classical orthodoxy" and that scholars have found "contradictions between the formalist elements in Holmes doctrinal writing and his famous realist jurisprudential aphorisms" (ibid., 4, 4n13.)
269. Subsequently, Grey contributed to the scholarship analyzing those contradictions, while the absence of further articles on Langdell suggests that Grey regards his treatment of "Langdell's Orthodoxy" as determinative. See Grey, "Holmes and Legal Pragmatism," Stanford Law Review 41 (1989): 787-870
270. "Plotting the Path of the Law," Brooklyn Law Review 63 (1997): 19-58
271. "Holmes on the Logic of the Law," in Burton, ed., Path of the Law and Its Influence, 133-57
272. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 16
273. Grey's recognition of Langdell's inductive approach corrected Gilmore's misunderstanding, which was nevertheless subsequently endorsed. Patterson, "Langdell's Legacy," 200n22
274. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 18. This inference of a causal link from the analogy between Mill's logic and Grey's view of Langdell's legal science is more plausible than, but analogous to, the speculative arguments of Speziale, Schweber, and Hoeflich, discussed above
275. Quotations are drawn from Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 13, 14, 15
276. By contrast, Langdell, in the emerging view sketched at the outset, appears (i) to regard justice as the end served by doctrinal coherence and (ii) to regard some specific decisions as unjust when they violate doctrinal coherence. According to this tentative, emerging view, Langdell seems to disagree with Grey's premise that justice could be known by a judge apart from doctrinal coherence. The question is not whether justice should influence specific decisions, as Grey frames it, but whether the conception in a judge's mind that Grey calls justice is merely what Langdell calls "the private judgment or will or caprice of any man." Letter from Langdell to Joseph R. Webster (19 August 1856) in Christopher Columbus Langdell Papers, Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library, f. 10-11
277. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 40
278. See ibid., 6
279. The ironical formalism of Grey's analysis is shown in language such as "classical orthodoxy sought objective tests . . ." or "the heart of classical orthodoxy was its aspirations that . . ." (ibid., 11)
280. This treatment of a conceptual category as an "ontologically robust, reified, animated" entity is precisely what dismissive critics have considered to be quintessentially formalistic about Langdell, as when he says "Equity will find" such and such. Pierre Schlag, "Law and Phrenology," Harvard Law Review 110 (1997): 900-901
281. The only justification Grey gives for this sharp distinction between pedagogy and jurisprudence is that "articulate critics of the latter were at the same time defenders and practitioners of the former." Ibid., 2n3. Only Holmes is cited in this connection, so it seems that Holmes's interpretation of Langdell is governing and that, since Holmes approved one aspect of Langdell's work and not another, the two aspects must be "independent" in principle. The weakness of this reasoning can be shown by pointing out that no scholar would want to universalize this standard either in regard to Holmes's interpretation of someone else or someone else's interpretation of Holmes
282. Carrington, "Hail! Langdell!" 693n14
283. John H. Schlegel likewise dismisses an analysis of Langdell's teaching as though it had no bearing on his jurisprudence. Schlegel, "Langdell's Auto-da-fé," Law and History Review 17 (1999): 149-54
284. See Langdell, Prefaces to Summary of Equity of Pleading (1877)
285. and Summary of the Law on Contracts (1880)
286. Grey gives no indication that he is analyzing a textbook even when stating, "Langdell's most common form of doctrinal discourse was simple dogmatic pronouncement and when he went beyond that, his more usual appeal was to authority or to 'principle.' (that is, doctrinal coherence)." Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 14
287. Similarly, this circularity is seen in Grey's discussion of the point that "classical orthodoxy sought objective tests," a characteristic "illustrated" to varying degrees by Williston, Ames, and Langdell (ibid., 11n36)
288. But these are precisely the exemplary figures who define "classical orthodoxy," so they necessarily illustrate its characteristics. Commensurate with his formalism, Grey imputes circularity to Langdell's treatment of cases as sources of common law principles (ibid., 24)
289. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 13, 14
290. Grey also discusses exceptions in Langdell's "classical orthodoxy" that Langdell does not deem anomalous (ibid., 26-27)
291. But Grey does not seem to provide for these exceptions in making his blanket assertion that acceptability - that is, considerations of justice or convenience - is never related by Langdell to bottom-level rules or decisions in specific cases (ibid., 15)
292. See Langdell, "Notebooks of Lectures on Partnership and Commercial Paper [1870-71]," 2 vols. Bound Manuscript Collection, Harvard Law School Library
293. Langdell, "Untitled Lecture notes on Suretyship and Mortgages," [Spring 1883], in Langdell, "Sampling of Manuscripts," Harvard University Archives
294. "Manuscript Book of Lecture Notes taken by an unidentified student in suretyship class taught by C. C. Langdell in 1892-3," Bound Manuscript Collection, Harvard Law School Library
295. Grey, "Langdell's Orthodoxy," 13-14
296. Howard Schweber insightfully observes that most commentators fail to read Langdell's entire discussion of the mailbox rule and, when that is done, it "looks a great deal like the derivation of a rule from the observation of practical consequences recorded in cases, precisely the idea of an inductive legal science - however constrained the range of his induction." Howard Schweber, "Before Langdell," 633. Schweber was specifically rebutting Grey's reading of Langdell's comment on the mailbox rule
297. Alschuler, Law without Values, 90
298. Quotations are from Siegel, "John Chipman Gray," 1516
299. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary, s.v. alimony
300. Langdell, "Discovery under the Judicature Acts of 1873, 1875," Harvard Law Review 11 (1897): 217
301. The People of the State of New York v. The Northern Railroad Company, 53 Barbour's 98, 108 (1869)
302. 1869 WL 6294 (N.Y.)
303. Other reviews include: John A. Matzko in American Journal of Legal History 39 (1995): 271-72
304. William C. Chase in Journal of American History 81 (1995): 1752-53
305. Maxwell Bloomfield in American Historical Review 100 (1995): 571
306. Eric A. Chiappinelli in Western Legal History 9 (1996): 250-52
307. Apart from passing references, this material is found primarily in William P. LaPiana, Logic and Experience: The Origin of Modern American Legal Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3-28, 55-78, and the associated notes
308. The book is founded in the dissertation: William P. LaPiana, "Logic and Experience: American Legal Thought and Legal Education, 1800-1920" (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1987)
309. LaPiana, Logic and Experience, pp. vii, 78
310. LaPiana expresses appreciation for Langdell in an "Epilogue," whose tone does not seem fully concordant with that in the body of the book. LaPiana, Logic and Experience, 168-70
311. Quotations are, respectively, from John H. Schlegel, [Book Review], Law and History Review 14 (1996): 369
312. But LaPiana at one point confuses the second edition of the Summary of Equity Pleading (1883) with that of Summary of the Law of Contracts
313. LaPiana ambitiously visited many archives gathering primary material for the rest of his study, not under consideration here
314. [Letters from 1907 and 1908 giving Reminiscences of Harvard Law School . . . ], Charles Warren Papers, box 37
315. Langdell Papers, box 10. The second largest collection of Langdell letters, recently identified, also addresses Langell's law practice: Eleazar Lord Papers, Special Collections, Harvard Law School Library
316. City Bank of New Haven v. Perkins, 29 N.Y. 554 ([New York Court of Appeals] 1864)
317. LaPiana was quoting and endorsing the traditional judgment of Ames, though he dropped Ames's key qualifier "often": "'Langdell did not often appear in court . . . '"("Christopher Columbus Langdell, 1826-1906," 473)
318. In an earlier article, LaPiana reached a similar conclusion without providing evidence that Langdell's professional experience informed him about litigating cases. William P. LaPiana, "Just the Facts: The Field Code and the Case Method," New York Law School Law Review 36 (1991): 325
319. The ancillary topics are addressed in W. Burlette Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," Georgia Law Review 32 (1997): 81-134
320. Quotations are from ibid., 40
321. Though Carter asserts that she is the first to examine these letters (ibid., 2n3)
322. they were previously quoted, without attribution, by Ames ("Christopher Columbus Langdell, 1826-1906," 473-74) as well as by Mark DeWolfe Howe, who left a note card in one of the boxes
323. Langdell Papers, box 11, f. 10-1
324. Delafield v. Parish (1857)
325. identified by Ames, and City Bank of New Haven v. Perkins (1864), identified by LaPiana
326. Apart from the annual reports, she discusses one of his four casebooks, one of his three summaries of doctrine, one of his nine articles in the Harvard Law Review, and two of his three published writings about HLS. Langdell's other publications are listed in passing. See Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," 86n298, 112n379
327. Quotations are from Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," 2, 23
328. See ibid., 4-11, 22n86, 25n96
329. Regarding the reasons for the perseverance of Holmes's "polemical" view of Langdell, Mathias Reimann maintains that the view "gains its power through its simplistic and one-sided portrayal and thereby successfully discredits logic in the law. The distaste we acquire for logic is transferred easily, and in accordance with Holmes's tactic, to Lansdell as its American representative . . . . The distorted picture of Langdell is, however, not Holmes's responsibility alone, nor due solely to our falling prey to the polemical character." In addition, the acceptance of Holmes's view is due to "our eagerness to view his relationship with Langdell incorrectly as an all-out conflict between a sophisticated early realist and a simple-minded formalist." Reimann, "Holmes's Common Law and German Legal Science "110
330. The decanal reports are found in the corresponding Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass., 18-)
331. Quotation is from E. Allan Farnsworth, "Contracts Scholarship in the Age of the Anthology," University of Michigan Law Revieiv 85 (1987): 1409n16
332. John W. Smith, A Selection of Leading Cases on Various Branches of the Law [1835] . . . with Additional Notes and References to American decisions by J. I. Clark Hare and Horace B. Wallace of the Philadelphia Bar (Philadelphia: John S. Littell, 1844), 2 vols
333. This was cited, for example, by I. W. Foltz, "Do we understand and rightly use the 'case system'?" Chicago Legal News 39 (1906): 7
334. Schofield, "Christopher Columbus Langdell," 281
335. A. W. B. Simpson, "The Rise and Fall of the Legal Treatise," in Legal Theory and Legal History: Essays on the Common Law (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), 303
336. Smith, A Selection of Leading Cases, publisher's advertisement, 1: vi; 2: 428-29, passim
337. Emlin McClain "William Gardiner Hammond," Great American Lawyers, ed. William D. Lewis (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1909), 8: 220-21
338. Dorsey D. Ellis, Jr., "Legal Education: A Perspective on the Last 130 Years of Legal Training," Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 6 (2001): 166
339. William G. Hammond, "Legal Education and the Study of Jurisprudence in the West and North-west," Journal of Social Science 8 (1876): 177-76
340. Quotations are from John Norton Pomeroy, Jr., "John Norton Pomeroy," in Great American Lawyers, ed. William D. Lewis (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1909), 8: 99
341. Phillip C. Jessup, Elihu Root (New York: Dodd Mead, 1938), 1: 61
342. Hurst, The Growth of American Law, 261ff
343. Speziale, "Langdell's Concept of Law as Science," 12n40
344. Friedman, A History of American Law, 613n20
345. Stevens, Law School, 66n14
346. Farnsworth, "Contracts Scholarship in the Age of the Anthology," 1409n16
347. Carrington, "Hail! Langdell!" 736
348. Carter, "Reconstructing Langdell," 22
349. Additional evidence for thinking that Pomeroy was a pioneer of case method is found in his 1878 program for the new Hastings Law School, in which he says he will discuss "leading cases" in class with students. See John Norton Pomeroy, The Hastings Law Department of the University of California (San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft, 1878), 17-18
350. But even here, Pomeroy, like Hammond, presents the cases as "illustrative" of legal doctrine previously communicated to students by means of a syllabus or lecture (Pomeroy, Jr., "John Norton Pomeroy," 99)
351. This approach, whether adopted in the late 1860s or 1878, differs significantly from Langdell's inductive case method. Pomeroy's syllabi and texts confirm that he presented cases for students to examine and discuss after he had lectured on the doctrine. See [John N. Pomeroy], Unpublished volume of pamphlets entitled "Announcement of Course of Instruction for Academic Year 1884/85 and Syllabuses of Lectures" (San Francisco: Hastings College of the Law, University of California, c.1880-c1884)
352. John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in the United States of America: Students' Edition (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1907)
353. John Norton Pomeroy, An Introduction to Municipal Law: designed for general readers and for students in colleges and higher schools, 2d ed. (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1886)
354. John Norton Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitution (New York: Hurd and Hough, 1868)
355. "Notes," Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 395
356. John N. Pomeroy, Jr., "[Review of] Josef Redlich, The Case Method in American Law Schools," Educational Administration and Supervision 2 (1916): 44-46
357. A comparison of Pomeroy's teaching and Langdell's teaching is made in Thomas G. Barnes, Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco: University of California Hastings College of Law, 1978), 110-14, where the understanding of Langdell is shaped largely by that of the Centennial History and Grant Gilmore and, therefore, adopts the revisionist view of Langdell and credits Pomeroy, although Pomeroy's systematizing and Langdell's disaggregating approaches to studying cases are distinguished