 Although each individual judge respects the relevant legal doctrine, there is a majority for \(p\), a majority for \(q\), and yet a majority against \(r\)—in breach of the legal doctrine. The court faces a dilemma: it can either go with the majority judgments on the premises \((p\) and \(q)\) and reach a ‘liable’ verdict by logical inference (the issue-by-issue or premise-based approach); \(or\) go with the majority judgment on the conclusion \((r)\) and reach a ‘not liable’ verdict, ignoring the majority judgments on the premises (the case-by-case or conclusion-based approach). The ‘doctrinal paradox’ consists in the fact that these two approaches may lead to opposite outcomes.