Philosophy 499
Study questions:  Riggs v. Palmer


1.  What are the basic facts of the case?  Why is there a problem with the way that statutory law
        seems to apply to this case?  What is the majority decision?

2.  There appear to be two main lines of argument that the majority uses to defend its decision
        in the case.  How do these arguments go?  Which of them seems to make an appeal to
        a "natural law" conception of law?

3.  What argument does Gray develop in defense of his dissent?

4.  What do you take to be the most reasonable decision in this case?  How would you
        defend it?  What implications does this have regarding natural law theory?