| This dissertation examines the role of narrative in the development of American law. Both the United States federal system and all individual state systems except that of Louisiana are common-law jurisdictions which operate according to a model that originated in England during the late Middle Ages. The common law is a system of judge-made rules which originate in the decisions of appellate judges in specific, individual cases, and which acquire the force of law through the operation of the principle of precedent, which requires that future cases whose facts are the same or similar to those of the case in which the precedent was announced be decided in accordance with the precedent. This dissertation examines the development of a single Michigan precedent, Pond v. People, over its almost 150-year history. Through an analysis of the fourteen cases applying this precedent, this dissertation demonstrates that common-law decision-making involves three processes---categorization, narrativization, and legal reasoning---which impose a narrative structure upon the common law, promoting consistency and predictability in the law while controlling the discretion of common-law judges. In so doing, this dissertation demonstrates the central role of narrative in shaping the common law as a just system of adjudication. |
