In this paper we use our previous work which has examined the different levels involved in reasoning about legal cases to examine some challenges to the relevance of current theoretical work in AI and Law made by Branting. In our model we view the process of legal reasoning as being divided into three distinct but interconnected levels of reasoning. These levels involve a bottom layer concerning facts about the world, a top layer concerning legal consequences, and a layer connecting the two, with conclusions at lower levels acting as premises for higher levels. We use our model to explain Branting's observations and show the relation with other strands of work from the AI and Law community.