court case briefing in Law ( legal writing )
abonayan
2020SClass3CCaseBriefingPowerpoint.pptx
Briefing Cases
Tips for Reading and Summarizing Court Cases
What is a Brief?
Case Brief:
Short summary and analysis of a single case.
Purpose: Prepared for use in class or work.
Identifies parties, facts, legal issues, and reasoning behind a court’s decision (among other things).
Objective.
No required format.
Courtroom Brief:
Written form of legal argument presented to a court.
Purpose: Persuade judge(s) to rule in one party’s favor.
Not objective.
Format generally governed by rule or custom.
Why Brief Cases?
Helps you understand the case.
Helps you remember the facts and issues.
Trains you to recognize important legal issues.
Forces you to read carefully, and to reread.
Prepares you for class.
Common Parts of a Case Brief
(1) Caption/Title
(2) Procedural History
(3) Facts
(4) Issue(s)
(5) Holding(s)/Decision(s)
(6) Reasoning/Court’s Analysis
(7) Dicta/Commentary/Other (optional)
(1) Caption/Title
Identifies the case being summarized
(A) Name of case & court issuing opinion; or
(B) Case Citation
For example:
Smith v. Jones, 325 F.2d 510 (3d Cir. 2001).
Case Citation Basics
Name of case, volume/reporter/page (jurisdiction year)
Smith v. Jones, 325 F.2d 510 (3d Cir. 2001)
Case Name
First name = “Plaintiff”
v. = versus
Second name = Defendant
Date Published
Volume 325 of the Federal Reporter 2d edition,
at page 510.
Third Circuit Federal Court
(2) Procedural History
The mechanics of the case:
Who is suing? (plaintiff)
Who is being sued? (defendant)
What is the “cause of action” or “claim”
recognised legal theory for gaining relief from the courts
How the lower court ruled in the case
Who is appealing?
To which court?
Include the current judgment in the Procedural History
This is the outcome of the case – What action the court (judge(s)) took to resolve the case.
For example:
(A) Affirmed
(B) Reversed
(C) Remanded (Sent back to the lower court for action consistent with the higher court’s opinion)
(2) Procedural History – Example
Procedural History:
Plaintiff, Julia Slocum, brought an action against the defendant, Food Fair Stores, to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and this appellate court affirmed that decision.
(3) Facts
“Necessary” vs. “Nice” Facts
Necessary Facts—Key to the court’s decision.
Nice Facts—Helps tell the story of the case.
Summary of relevant facts
Who did what to whom?
How?
Injuries and/or damages
(3) Facts – Example
Facts: Julia Slocum, asked a Food Fair Stores of Florida employee for the price of an item. The employee replied: “If you want to find out the price, you’ll have to find out the best way you can…you stink to me.” Julia claims to have suffered severe emotional stress, a heart attack, and aggravation of a pre-existing heart condition as a result of this statement.
(4) Issue(s)
The question(s) in controversy, which the court was obliged to answer.
Write in the form of a separate question
Yes or No (answer) form
Issues may be:
(a) Procedural; or
(b) Substantive
(4) Issue(s) – Example
Issues:
I. Does Florida recognise an independent cause of action for IIED?
II. Do the employee’s “insulting” words to the plaintiff give rise to a cause of action for IIED?
(5) Holding(s)/Decision(s)
The answer to each issue (question) before the court.
Begins with short answer (Yes, No).
(5) Holding(s)/Decision(s) – Example
Holding(s):
I. Yes. Florida does recognise an independent cause of action for IIED.
II. No. The clerk’s comments to the plaintiff do not give rise to a claim for IIED.
(6) Reasoning/Court’s Analysis
Rationale for the court’s decision.
The reasons the court used to reach it.
May include multiple steps.
Short Example:
1. Provocation requires intent.
2. Defendant did not intend to step on the tail.
3. Defendant did not provoke the dog.
(6) Reasoning/Court’s Analysis – Example
Reasoning:
The question of whether IIED is a cause of action in Florida is one of first impression. There is a strong trend in the law toward recognizing such an independent tort, and the court acknowledges this trend.
However, looking at the trend, recovery is deemed to be allowed when the conduct (including words) is “calculated to cause ‘severe emotional distress’ to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” absent special knowledge that the victim is hypersensitive, in a manner that “exceeds all bounds which could be tolerated by society.”
Here, the comments of the clerk to the plaintiff were “mere vulgarities” and not calculated to cause severe emotional distress.
(7) Dicta, Commentary, Notes (optional)
“Dicta” – commentary by the court that does not pertain directly to the case at hand.
Rule of Law – A general/broad rule that the case stands for, and that may apply as precedent in future cases.
Commentary – Questions that arise as you read. Does something seem wrong about the outcome?
Why was this case assigned? How does this case relate to other cases you are studying?
Case Brief Sample
Caption: Slocum v. Food Fair Stores, 100 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1958)
Procedural History: Plaintiff brought an action against the employer to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Facts: Plaintiff, Julia Slocum, asked a Food Fair Stores of Florida employee for the price of an item. The employee replied: “If you want to find out the price, you’ll have to find out the best way you can … you stink to me.” Julia claims to have suffered severe emotional stress, a heart attack, and aggravation of a pre-existing heart condition as a result of this statement.
Issues: Does Florida recognise an independent cause of action for IIED? If so, do the employee’s “insulting” words to the plaintiff give rise to a cause of action for IIED?
Holding: The court refused to address squarely whether the cause of action exists in Florida. But if Florida did recognise an independent tort of IIED, the clerk’s comments to Julia would not be of such a nature to give rise to the claim.
p. 1
Reasoning: The question of whether IIED is a cause of action in Florida is one of first impression. There is a strong trend in the law to recognise such an independent tort, and the court acknowledges this trend. However, looking at the trend, recovery is deemed to be allowed when the conduct (including words) is “calculated to cause ‘severe emotional distress’ to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” absent special knowledge that the victim is hypersensitive, in a manner that “exceeds all bounds which could be tolerated by society.” Here, the comments of the clerk to Julia were “mere vulgarities” and not calculated to cause severe emotional distress. Thus, the court stopped short of recognizing the tort in Florida, and even if it had, there was no cause of action in this case.
Dicta/Commentary: Although the court identifies the question of IIED as one of first impression in Florida and does not explicitly resolve it in this case, the court recognises a strong current of opinion in favor of the action throughout the nation. Under this emerging theory of IIED, recovery is allowed when the conduct (including words) is “calculated to cause ‘severe emotional distress’ to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” absent special knowledge or notice (Restatement) in a manner that “exceeds all bounds which could be tolerated by society” (Prosser).
p. 2
