Case Review Template - The Skeleton

Case Review Template The Skeleton Statement of Facts - identify relationship between the parties (buyer/seller, employee/employer) - Legal relevant facts (what happened before the case - Cause of actions (law that the plaintiff claimed was broken broke), relief of plaintiff requested, defenses History - decision of the lower course (if the case was decided by a trial court before reaching the court whose decision you are reading and what each court decided) - Damages reward - Who appealed and why Issues - substantive issue: - The point of law in dispute - Key facts (legally relevant facts) - procedural issue: what is the appealing party claiming the lower court did wrong (ruling of evidence, jury instructions) - Judgement: courts final decision - holding: statement of law that that is the courts answer to the issue (positive or negative part of the issue statement - Rule of law: rule of law that the court applies to. Could be a statue, case rule, regulation.. - Reasoning: courts analysis of the issues and the heart of the case brief - Concurring: a judge who hears a case may not agree with the majority decision and will write a separate dissenting opinion . - Additional comment: What are your reactions to and critique of the opinion? Anything you like? Dislike? How does this case fall in line with the other cases you have read? Do not accept the courtÕs opinion blindly. Assess the reasoning in each case. Is it sound? Is it contradictory? What are the political, economic or social impacts of this decision? The Meat Nearly every case brief should include, at a minimum, the following information: - The facts of the case - The legal issue - The legal principle applied in the case - The holding and reasoning of the majority - A summary of any concurrences and dissents Facts of the Case The facts sec ion of your car brief should include the following info; - The cause of the action (eg. A suit for replevin, breach of contract) - An identification of the plaintiff (a person who brings a case against another in a court of law) and the defendant in the case by party name - The operative facts of the case that led to the dispute between the parties - The trial court/juryÕs holding - The appellate(concerned with or dealing with applications for decisions to be reversed) courtÕs holding ***Always identify the plaintiff and the defendant in the case. Never simply refer to the parties as ÒplaintiffÓ and ÒdefendantÓ without indicating which party is the plaintiff and which is the defendant. Sometimes a court will refer to parties as appellant/appellee or petitioner/ respondent. Make sure you figure out whoÕs the plaintiff and whoÕs the defendant. A good rule of thumb: the plaintiff is whoever initiated the lawsuit. Legal Issue The issue section is the next logical step You should identify the legal issue being emphasized in the casebook. For ex., if a case in a contracts casebook appears in a chapter on promissory estoppel, then your issue section should also relation to the promissory estoppel (A promise made to another party to a contract that the contract will not be enforced in whole or in part) . The issue should be a legal question, not a procedural one. Hence, the following rendering of the issue section is incorrect: ÒWhether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff.Ó Note that the foregoing issue does not bear on anything substantive, nor does it bear on the legal question at issue in the case. Finally, your issue section should be phrased as a question that facilitates a ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ answer. Never create an issue that invites an ambiguous answer. Example 1: May a state limit the appointment of members of its police force to United States citizens? Rule of Law The rule of law is the legal principle which the court rested its decision in the care. A single legal opinion may contain numerous rules of law or legal principles that impacted the courtÕs final decision. Pro tip: Look at the chapter and section headings under which the case appears in your casebook; theyÕll tell you the topic to which your rule of law should relate or, if there are multiple rules of law, which one is important. For example, if a case appears in the ÒPromissory EstoppelÓ section of your contracts casebook, then the rule of law should be related to promissory estoppel (as opposed to some other topic). Ex. ÒA federal law may preempt a state or local law even if the laws are not mutually exclusive if the state law is deemed to impede the achievement of a federal objective.Ó Holding and Reasoning The holding and reasoning section should be structured in a manner consistent with the CREAC method (Conclusion, rule, explanation, application and conclusion), also known as the IRAC method ( issue, rule, application and conclusion). The repetition of the conclusion in the beginning and the end of a CREAC reinforces the major takeaway of the case. The holding and reasoning section of your case brief should contain the following information (if obtainable in the casebook): 1. A ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ answer to the question posed by the issue section 2. The relevant legal principles and rules used to decide the case 3. The application of those principles to the facts of the case 4. The courts conclusion 5. The procedural disposition (eg. Reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc) 6. The names of any seminal cases or important statutes used by the majority in its opinion eg. ÒHOLDING AND REASONING: (Winter, J.) No. A district court generally has discretion to call witnesses on its own as necessary. However, a district court may not call a witness on its own where the prosecutionÕs case would be insufficient as a matter of law without the courtÕs witness. A court must be impartial and may not insert itself into the role of the prosecution. Doing so would violate a defendantÕs right to due process. In this case, the prosecutionÕs case was insufficient without the testimony of the Cassidys. As a result, it was improper for the district court to call them as witnesses. The court may not, on its own, overcome a defendantÕs presumption of innocence. Furthermore, because the district court did not give an explanation to the jury about the court calling witnesses, it is likely that the jury inappropriately gave more consideration to the Cassidys testimony because they were called by the court itself. The district courtÕs ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.Ó Concurrences and Dissents A concurring opinion is one that agrees with the outcome reached by the majority but disagrees with the reason. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority. CONCURRENCE: (Widener, J.) The district court should not be reversed based on due process, but rather on criminal procedure. The burden of production of evidence is not on the defendant or the court; it is on the prosecution. DISSENT: (Russell, J.) The trial judgeÕs calling of the Cassidys was proper. The majorityÕs reasoning makes its holding significantly broader than its presumed intention. If a district court is not permitted to step in as the role of prosecutor, a district court would never be permitted to call its own witness. Moreover, the fact that the CassidysÕ testimony was vital to the case is all the more reason that the trial judge properly called the witnesses. A court does not become impartial by simply calling a witness for one side or the other. Finally, if there was any error in failing to instruct the jury on why the court called the Cassidys, such error was harmless.