the heart of the case is the judge’s opinion (or what was decided) the attorney’s names will be...

The heart of the case is the judge’s opinion (or what was decided)

The attorney’s names will be at the top, after the case name.

There is a date decided and the publisher has headnotes to help you. Not really a part of a case, just to help

you

1.Facts: what happened? Why are we in court? What’s the story?

2.The issue: what is being decided? Some have more than one.

3.The holding: The answers to the questions

4. Authorities to support the holding and judge’s decision.

5. Disposition

1. Basic categories must be included: Procedural background Facts Issues Holding(s) Rationale Disposition (affirmed, reversed, etc)

The case name will typically show two parties. In a criminal case the first party is invariably the government (probably state or federal) and the second party is the defendant.

However, a case before an appellate court (which are the cases you will brief) may result in a switch when a defendant (now the appellant or petitioner) seeks action against the state (now the appellee or respondent).

Appellate cases have, by definition, already had a trial stage. In fact, depending on what appeal level the case now being briefed is at, it may already have been to several appellate courts. The case brief should identify the courts that have dealt with the case and indicate the decisions those courts have made.

In one or two paragraphs, provide a concise summary of the incident that brought the case before the court. This will include a description of the crime and the circumstances causing the earlier court’s decision to be appealed. This is actually one of the more difficult parts of the brief since requires you to clearly identify and concisely state ONLY that information needed to understand the case. The decision itself usually includes a lot more information than is needed for the brief.

Phrase, in your own words, the legal question the court has tried to answer in this case. State the issue as a question (e.g., “Can a police officer. . .?”).

Sometimes the issue is made very clear in the opinion (e.g., “This case presents the question. . .”, “The issue in this case is . . .”) but at other times it is not quite so “in your face.” Even when the issue is blatantly presented in the opinion, you should still phrase it in your own words.

How has this court resolved the issue? What was the outcome? What action did the court take? Like the legal issue, the court’s decision or holding is probably clearly stated in the opinion (e.g., “We hold . . .”).

This should be a brief summary of the court’s decision

and will, of course, resemble aspects of the legal issue statement. In this sense, the holding tells the answer to the question phrased as the legal issue.

Why did the court reach the decision it did? What arguments justify the holding? Because judges often write many pages when justifying and explaining their decisions, this can be a difficult section for student’s to write.

The doctrine of stare decisis requires judges to align their decision with legal principles established in previously decided cases. As a result, court opinions take considerable space to show how the current decision is consistent with the established principles. Your job is to state, as succinctly as possible, the rationale provided by the court’s majority in support of their decision.

Affirmed —The appellate court agree with the opinion of the lower court from which the appeal came.

Reversed —The appellate court disagrees with the opinion of the lower court from which the appeal came and sets aside or invalidates that opinion. Reversals are often accompanied by a remand.

Remanded —The case is sent back to the court from which it came for further action consistent with the appellate court opinion. Remand often accompanies a reversal.

Use a legal dictionary to understand legal terminology you have not heard of before

Remember what you are looking forRestate the case in your brief in

simple terms If the case is complicated, you may

want to diagram.

Important: in the rationale, you must present the information as the court’s reasoning – not your own. Use phrases like “the court found that,” “the court reasoned that,” and “the court ruled that.”

Know who are the parties (plaintiff/defendant, prosecutor/defense, appellant/appellee, etc.)

What are the parties wanting? (Do the parties want someone punished? Freedom? Someone to do something, not do something, etc)

Who was successful in the ruling? Why was the party successful? Know the procedure (is this an appeal, a

trial court’s notes, etc. Many written decisions are on appeal, not a trial case).

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Zang 341 So.2d 88 (La. Ct. App. 1977)

The facts of this case are good for Ms. Greeves: stove fire, grease left on burner, burner on “off” position, fire began. Owner (lessor) knew of problems with stove, and because of the faulty condition, the lessee (Mrs. Zang) not liable for fire, owner was.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brown, 256 So.2d 716 (La. Ct. App. 1971)

This case is not good for Ms. Greeves, our client. The Appeals court reverses the trial court (who originally found that the lessee was not negligent) and says the lessee is negligent for activating the oven and leaving the house, causing the fire.

Bazaure v. Richman, 336 P.2d 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)

Another bad case for Ms. Greeves, in this case, the appeals court affirms the trial court’s finding that the lessee was negligent and that was the cause of the fire.

Felshin v. Sir, 5 So.2d 600 (Fl. 1942) Even though the lessee does not recover

in this case, it still may be a good one for Ms. Greeves. In this case, the lessee does not recover because there was no provision in the lease dictating that the landlord repair or try to improve conditions of the property. In our case, there are such provisions, this is what we need to distinguish. Also, the renters in the Felshin case knew of the defective condition, Ms. Greeves did not.

 1. Is the reasoning behind the decision in Traveler’s Insurance Co. v. Zang consistent with that of Aetna Casualty &  Surety Co. v. Brown? 1. a. If not, how is it different?  (In Zang,

Res Ipsa is used and is enough, in Aetna, it is not. In Aetna, because the tenants knew that the refrigerator door would sometimes hit the stove, the court says that they should have double checked the stove before they left.)

2. Do you agree with the outcome that the tenant in Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. was negligent while the tenant in Traveler’s Insurance Co. was not? Explain.   

How is the Felshin slip-and-fall case relevant to Mrs. Greeves’ grease-fire case? Does Felshin help or hurt Mrs. Greeves’ cause?  Explain.

(Pros: this case is distinguishable. The renters in the Felshin case did not have any clauses for repair in their contract. Also, the renters in the Felshin case knew of the defective condition at the time they took possession of the property, Ms. Greeves did not.

Cons: the renters continued to live in place after they knew of defect, as did Ms. Greeves.)

Did you notice any issues that the judge brought up in the 1942 Felshin case that would not necessarily be important in a legal decision today?  If so, explain why such issue(s) would not be relevant. (Issues of language: please make note of these and compare to Greeves’ case. No provisions in lease (now they are implied that a landlord will keep the property safe, property codes, housing codes, etc.)

Case Brief Projectb)  Write your briefs; one per

case. Each brief should not exceed one page in length. It should have standard one-inch margins all around, be single-spaced (with double-spacing between sections), use 12-point type, and follow the format prescribed in Legal Writing.

Once you have written your briefs, proofread them thoroughly, keeping in mind what you have learned thus far about sentence fragments, active and passive voice, run-on sentences, commas, apostrophes, clarity, and jargon.

Go to Doc SharingScroll down past the chapters of the

ebookLook for the Unit 4 Assignment

Grading RubricClick it open – let’s review!