Transcript How Do You Brief A Case?

How Do You Brief A Case?
Mingchao Fan (SHUPL)
-All rights reserved
FACTS
• Pinpoint the determinative facts of a case, i.e., those that
make a difference in the outcome.
• Your goal here is to be able to tell the story of the case
without missing any pertinent information but also not
including too many extraneous facts either; it takes some
practice to pick out the determinative facts, so don’t get
discouraged if you miss the mark the first few times.
• Above all, make sure you have clearly marked the
parties’ names and positions in the case
(Plaintiff/Defendant or Appellee/Appellant).
Procedural History
• Record what has happened procedurally in the case
up until this point.
• The dates of case filings, motions of summary
judgment, court rulings, trials, and verdicts or
judgments should be noted, but usually this isn’t an
extremely important part of a case brief unless the
court decision is heavily based in procedural rules—
or unless you note that your professor loves to focus
on procedural history.
Issue Presented
• Formulate the main issue or issues in the case in the
form of questions, preferably with a yes or no
answer, which will help you more clearly state the
holding in the next section of the case brief.
Holding
• The holding should directly respond to the question
in the Issue Presented, begin with “yes” or “no,” and
elaborate with “because…” from there.
• If the opinion says “We hold…” that’s the holding;
some holdings aren’t so easy to pinpoint, though, so
look for the lines in the opinion that answer your
Issue Presented question.
Rule of Law
• In some cases this will be clearer than others, but
basically you want to identify the principle of law on
which the judge or justice is basing the resolution of
the case. This is what you’ll often hear called “black
letter law.”
Application
• This is the most important part of your brief as it
describes why the court ruled the way it did; some law
professors dwell on facts more than others, some more
on procedural history, but all spend the most time on the
court’s reasoning as it combines all parts of the case
rolled in one, describing the application of the rule of law
to the facts of the case, often citing other court’s
opinions and reasoning or public policy considerations in
order to answer the issue presented.
• This part of your brief traces the court’s reasoning step
by step, so be sure that you record it without gaps in
logic as well.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinion
• You don’t need to spend too much time on this part
other than the pinpoint the concurring or dissenting
judge’s main point of contention with the majority
opinion and rationale.
• Concurring and dissenting opinions hold lots of law
professor Socratic Method fodder, and you can be
ready by including this part in your case brief.
What You Need
• Case book
• Paper and pen or computer
• Attention to details
A Sample Case Brief
• Students of GVPT 439A v. McIntosh 0 U.S. 0 2004
• PARTIES:
A group of University of Maryland college students (appellants) filed suit
against their instructor, McIntosh (appellee).
• LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
This is a civil case. Appellants are seeking relief in the form of revised
grades and positive law school evaluations. The courts below issued
conflicting rulings. The U.S. District Court (MD) ruled in favor of the
appellants, but refused to reach the constitutional issue. The U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the District Court, ruling that
appellee McIntosh was endowed with special rights that outweighed the
First Amendment rights of petitioner students. The students appealed,
and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• FACTS:
•
The facts apparently are not in dispute. Students
were asked to read and discuss several Court cases
over two class periods. They refused, instead
engaging in a dialogue over some unrelated
political/legal phenomena. McIntosh subsequently
issued failing grades for the entire class and refused
to write any professional letters of reference.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• LEGAL PROVISIONS:
•
The students claim that McIntosh abridged their First Amendment right to
engage in meaningful dissent and to discuss political issues of their own
choosing. McIntosh counter-claims that the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, as applied to him, outweigh the students' speech rights. In
addition, he argues that the weight of locational analysis in the Court's
First Amendment jurisprudence is in his favor -- classroom restrictions on
speech are entirely reasonable time, place and manner limitations. A
literal reading of the amendment's language would also mean that free
speech is not relevant to a university classroom unless it involves an act of
Congress. Finally, McIntosh cites a recently discovered (an never
published) Federalist paper (#86), allegedly authored by James Madison,
that addresses specifically the question of classroom speech, concluding
that university instructors should be considered unquestioned masters of
their respective houses.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• ISSUE:
•
To what extent may a government-employed educator prevent students
from speaking about issues unrelated to the subject matter of a particular
course?
• DECISION:
•
Affirming the Appellate Court ruling, the Supreme Court (8-1) ruled in
favor of appellee McIntosh.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• REASONS:
•
Chief Justice Katz wrote for the majority. Though somewhat vague, the
Court seems to rely on several sources of rationale for its decision. Toward
the specific issue of the case, classroom speech, the court relies on
precedent suggesting that student speech may be restricted, as
censorship by an instructor constitutes a reasonable time, place and
manner restriction. On the broader matter, the Court's new sweeping
powers under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the justices appear
to hinge their decision on the following: First, a statement attributed to
Chief Justice Katz, "The Constitution is what the judges say it is," which
suggests broad interpretive powers for the Supreme Court. Second, the
Court employs a strict textual construction of the First Amendment which
mentions only a limitation on Congress. Finally, in its reference to the
mysterious Federalist 86, the Court appears to place some reliance on the
original intent of the framers.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• RULE OF THE CASE:
•
On the matter at issue, the Court, citing Pontifical v.
Twenty Unnamed Graduating Seniors (450 US 29, 2000),
ruled that students' speech may be restricted to the
content of a course. The Court, however, took the
opportunity of this case to go considerably further. It
ruled, in essence, that the Supreme Court may restrict
and even coerce speech and that only Congress is subject
to the limitations of the First Amendment. In so doing,
the Court has, apparently, in one fell swoop, overturned
most of its First and Fourteenth Amendment precedents.
A Sample Case Brief (continued)
• CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINIONS:
• There were no concurrences. Dissenter Evans
seemed somewhat confused.
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
• Title and Citation
• 李作洋诉陈国文民间借贷纠纷案
• (2010)紫民初字第681号
• Facts
• 2007年12月21日，被告向原告借款，并出具借条。
借条显示借款数额大写为肆万元，小写为45000元。
被告逾期未偿还本息，遂涉诉。
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Procedure
原告：李作洋；被告：陈国文
诉因：民间借贷纠纷
诉请：偿还本息45000元
法院：安康市紫阳县人民法院
判决性质：一审判决（未上诉）
判决：偿还本金40000元；驳回其他诉请
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
• Issue
• 借条中借款金额大小写以何者为准
• Holding
• 以对提供借条者不利的解释为准
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
• Rule
• 法院未阐明适用的法律
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
• Application
• 借条大小写不一致，因其为原告所提供，因此采对其不利的解释，因此
认定借款金额为40000元。
• Concurring/Dissenting Opinion
• 无
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
• Comments:
• 法律适用：
• 法院似乎适用了《证据规则》关于举证不能者承
担不利后果的规定（《证据规则》第二条第二款
）及关于负有合同履行义务者承担证明合同履行
的举证责任的规定（证据规则第五条第二款）
Sample Answer:
(2010)紫民初字第681号
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments
可行的论证逻辑可以表述为：
原告主张履行了45000元的借款义务应当承担举证责任；
借条作为唯一证据仅能证明原告或者履行了45000元的借款义务，或
者履行了40000元的借款义务，但无法排他性地证明原告履行的是
45000元的借款义务而非40000的借款义务；
因此原告应当承担无法举证证明履行了45000元借款义务的不利后果；
但借条证明了原告或者履行了45000元的借款义务，或者履行了
40000元的借款义务；
据此，原告若未履行45000元的借款义务，则必然履行了40000元的
借款义务；
因此，认定原告履行了40000元的借款义务。