Empirické zkoumání metodologie interpretace práva

BALKIN, Jack M. Living Originalism. Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674063037

BOBEK, Michal. Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts. Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680382.001.0001

BOBEK, Michal. Výzkum v právu: reklama na Nike anebo kvantová fyzika? Jurisprudence [online]. 2016, č. 6 [cit 27. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: http://www.jurisprudence.cz/cz/casopis/vydani/6-2016

COLEMAN, Jules L. The Architecture of Jurisprudence. In: BELTRÁN, Jordi Ferrer, José Juan MORESO a Diego M. PAPAYANNIS Neutrality and Theory of Law. London: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

CRESWELL, John W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2. vyd. London, New Delhi: Thousand Oaks, 2003.

CZARNEZKI, Jason J. a William K. FORD. The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation of Legal Interpretation. Maryland Law Review [online]. 2006, roč. 65. Univ. of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory, Research Paper Series No. 102. Marquette Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-05 [cit. 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://ssrn.com/abstract=773865

EPSTEIN, Lee a Gary KING. The Rules of Inference. The University of Chicago Law Review [online]. 2002, roč. 69, č. 1 [cit 27. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol69/iss1/1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600349

EPSTEIN, Lee a Jack KNIGHT. Court and Judges. In: SARAT, Austin (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

GALLIGAN, D. J. Legal Theory and Empirical Research. In: CANE, Peter a Herbert M. KRITZEL (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542475.013.0041

GATES, John B. a Glenn A. PHELPS. Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions. Political Research Quarterly [online]. 1996, roč. 49, č. 2, June [cit 26. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299604900201

GIBSON, James L. From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory in the Study of Judicial Behavior. Political Behavior [online]. Springer, 1983, roč. 5, č. 1, s. 9 [cit. 25. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: http://www.jstor.org/stable/586347. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985

GLUCK, Abbe R. a, Lisa Schultz BRESSMAN. Statutory Interpretation from the Inside: Method Appendix. Stanford Law Review [online]. 2013, roč. 65, č. 6 [cit 29. 8. 2018].

GUTHRIE, Chris, Jeffrey J. RACHLINSKI a Andrew J. WISTRICH. Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Faculty Publications [online]. 2007, paper 917 [cit. 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/917

HUTCHESON, J. C. Judgement Intuitive: The Function of the „Hunch“ in Judicial Decision. Cornell Law Quaterly, 1929, roč. 14, s. 280, cit. z: MODAK-TRURAN, M. C. A Pragmatic Justification of The Judicial Hunch. University of Richmond Law Review [online]. 2001, roč. 35 [cit. 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://dc.law.mc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=faculty-journals

KNIGHT, Jack. Are Empiricists asking the right questions about judicial decisionmaking? Duke Law Journal [online]. 2009, roč. 58, č. 7 [30. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol58/iss7/9

KOSAŘ, David a Jan PETROV. Jak vybrat „případy“ do případové studie a pracovat s nimi v právu: poznatky z výzkumu na pomezí práva a politologie. Jurisprudence [online]. Wolters Kluwer, a. s., 2016, roč. 25 [cit 26. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: http://www.jurisprudence.cz/cz/casopis/jak-vybrat-pripady-do-pripadove-studie-a-pracovat-s-nimi-v-pravu-poznatky-z-vyzkumu-na-pomezi-prava-a-politologie.m-221.html

KUHN, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science [online]. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, U.S.A., 1997 [cit 27. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf

LAWLESS, Robert M., Jennifer K. ROBBENNOLT a Thomas S. ULEN. Empirical Methods in Law. 2. vyd. New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2016. ISBN 978-1-4548-7580-2.

LINDQUIST, Stefanie A. a David E. KLEIN. The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases. Law & Society Review [online]. 2006, roč. 40, č. 1 [cit 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00262.x

MALANÍK, Michal. Empirický výzkum metodologie interpretace práva. Disertační práce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Právnická fakulta, 2019, s. 158–161. Vedoucí práce Martin Škop. Dostupné z: https://is.muni.cz/th/hg64v/ [cit. 4. 6. 2019].

MALANÍK, Michal. Explanatory Reports as a Means to Understand the Legislator-court Dialogue. In: KLUSOŇOVÁ, Markéta, Michal MALANÍK, Monika STACHOŇOVÁ a Martin ŠKOP (eds.). Argumentation 2017: international konference on alternative methods of argumentation in law. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2017.

McCRUDDEN, Christopher. Legal Research and the Social Sciences. The Law Quarterly Review [online]. July 2006, č. 122 [cit 27. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228183697_Legal_Research_and_the_Social_Sciences

NERHOT, Patrick. Interpretation in Legal Science. In: NERHOT, Patrick. Law, Interpretation and Reality. Essays in Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Jurisprudence. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwe Academic Publishers, 2013.

PATTON, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: integrating theory and practice. 4. vyd. SAGE Publitcations, 2015.

PAULSON, Stanley L. Kelsen on legal interpretation. Legal Studies, United Kingdom, 1990, č. 136. Dostupné z: HeinOnline [právní informační systém]. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00596.x

POSNER, R. A. How Judges Think. 2008, r. 253, cit z: URSIN, Edmund. How Great Judges Think: Judges Richard Posner, Henry Friendly, and Roger Traynor on Judicial Lawmaking. Buffalo law review [online]. 2009, roč. 57, s. 1267–1360 [cit. 3. 6. 2015]. ISSN 0023-9356. Dostupné z: http://www.buffalolawreview.org/past_issues/57_4/Ursin%20Web%2057_4.pdf

REVESZ, Richard L. A Defense of Empirical Legal Sholarship. The Universityof Chicago Law Review [online]. 2002, roč. 69, č. 1, článek 4 [cit. 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol69/iss1/4. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600352

RODRÍGUEZ, J. L. Norms, Truth, and Legal Statements. In: BELTRÁN, J. F., J. J. MORESO a D. M. PAPAYANNIS. Neutrality and Theory of Law. London: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6067-7_6

SAVIGNY, Friedrich Carl. System des heutigen römishen Rechts. Leipzig. 1840, s. 213, cit. dle WINTR, Jan. Metody a zásady interpretace práva. Praha: Auditorium, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111443348

TROCHIM, William M., James P. DONNELLY a Kanika ARORA. Research Methods: The Essential Knowledge Base. 2. vyd. Cengage Learning, 2015.

WALSHAW, Christopher. Interpretation is Understanding and Application: The Case for Concurrent Legal Interpretation. Statute Law Review [online]. 2013, roč. 34, č. 2 [cit 28. 8. 2018]. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hms044

WEISS, Robert S. Learning From Strangers. The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

WINTR, Jan. Vstupní úvahy o metodologii interpretace práva. VŠEHRD [online]. 2010, č. 11 [cit. 22. 3. 2014]. Dostupné z: http://casopis.vsehrd.cz/2010/11/vstupni-uvahy-o-metodologii-interpretace-prava/