an introduction to judicial opinions

8/15/2019 An Introduction to Judicial Opinions

1/9

n

Introduction to

Judicial Opinions

§3 1

he

natomy

of

Opinions

In

an

opinion announcing a court s decision, one might find nine different

kinds of pronouncement:

1 a recitation of procedural events

2 a recitation of pleaded or

evidentiary

events

3. a

statement

of the issue

or

issues to be decided by the

court

4. a summary of the arguments made by

each

side

5

the court s holding on each issue

6. the rule or rules of law the court enforces through each holding

7. the court s reasoning

8. dicta

9. a statement of the relief

granted

or denied

Only infrequently, however, do all nine occur in the same opinion.

Opinions often begin with

1)

a recitation of

procedur l

v nts

inside

the litigation

that

have raised the issue decided by the court. Examples are

motions, hearings, trial, judgment, and appeal. Although the court s descrip

tion of these events may because of unfamiliar terminology - seem

at

first confUSing, you must be able to understand procedural histories because

the manner in which an issue is raised determines the method a

court

will

use to decide it. A court decides a motion for a directed verdict, for example,

very differently from the way t rules on a request for a jury instruction,

even though both might require the

court

to consider the same point of law.

The procedural events add up to

the

case s procedural posture

at the

time

the decision was made.

7


2/9

§3.1

Introduction to

Law

and Its Study

Frequently, the court will next

describe (2) thc

pleaded

events or

thc

eVidentiary

events

on which the ruling is based. In litigation, parties plcad

racts and then prove

them. The

court

has

no

other

way of knowing what

transpired between the parties bet ore the lawsuit began. f the procedural

posture involved a motion to dismiss a pleading - before any evidence

could be

submitted

the

decision

will

be

bascd

on

the

allegations in

the

challenged pleading (usually a complaint). Otherwisc, the court s knowledge

of thc facts will come from evidentiary events

such

as testimony and ex

hibits at trial or at a hearing, or perhaps affidavits and exhibits submitted in

connection with a motion.

A court might also

set

out (3) a statement of

the

issue or issues before

the court

for decision and

(4)

a summ ry of

the

rguments

made

by

cach

side, although either

or

both are often only implied. A court will further

state (or at

least imply) (5)

the

holding on

each

of the issues

and

(6)

the

rule

or

rules

of law

the

court

enforccs in

making

each

holding,

together with

(7) the reasoning behind often called the rationale

for -

its decision.

Somewhere in the opinion, the

court

might placc some (8)

dicta.

You will

learn more

about

dicta in the next few months. but for the

moment

think

of it as discussion unnccessary to support a holding and therefore lacking

binding preceden tial authority.)

An opinion usually

ends with (9)

a

st tement

of the relit:f

gr nted

or

denied. If the opinion represents

the

decision of an appellate

court, the

re

lief may be an affirmance, a reversal,

or

a reversal

combined

with a direction

to the trial court to

proceed

in a specified

manner. f

thc opinion is from a

trial

court,

the relief is most

commonly

the granting or denial of a motion.

Exercise I issecting

the

Text of

Meints

v untington

Read Meints v Huntington and determine where If anywhere) each of these

types of pronouncement occurs. Mark up the text generously and be prepared to

discuss

your analysis in

class.

Look up in a legal dictionary every unfamiliar word

and every familiar word that

is

used

In

an unfamiliar way.

MEINTS

v HUNTINGTON

276 F

245

8th

Cir

1921)

LEWIS

District Judge. John Meints. a resident and citizen of South Dakota,

brought this action against O. P Huntington and others, residents and citi

zens

of

Rock

County. Minnesota, to recover damages. on the charge that

they deported him from Minnesota to South Dakota on the night

of

August

19. 1918. and maltreated him on the way. After a lengthy trial, exhibited

here by 1100 pages of testimony. the greater part of which relates to the

loyalty of the defendants and the disloyalty of plaintiff during the late World

War there was verdict and Judgment for defendants.

§.l.l 1.

See

pages 8-9.

28


3/9

An Introduction t Judicial Opinions

Exercises

The plaintiff was born In Illinois, went to Rock County, Minnesota, and

resided there

in

the town of Luverne for sixteen or seventeen years prior to

the summer of 19 8

In

the spnng of that year he was suspected of being

interested in or of having contributed to the support of a Non-Partisan

League newspaper printed and published in that town; on account

of

that,

and also because it was claimed that he was disloyal, a large body of men,

including some of the defendants, went to his house about midnight of

June 9th, woke him up, compelled him to dress and come

out

and some

of them

In

automobiles took him across the State line into Iowa, a distance

of about fifteen miles, told him

not

to return and left him there He then

went

to St. Paul and reported the occurrence

to

a U Government agent

in

the Department of Justice, That agent sent two men to

Rock

County to

make an investigation, and on their report Mr Campbell of that Depart

ment advised plaintiff to return to Rock County but to

go

to the home of

his two sons some twelve miles out from Luverne, and remain

there He

did return

the

latter part of July and went to his sons home, On the night

of August 3rd men in eight or nine automobiles

went out to

the sons

house, Among them were the defendants Huntington, Connell, Ihlan,

Miner, Turnbull and Kimmerling, They tried to enter the house by unlocking

the doors With keys which they had, but were

not

able

to

do so and finally

obtained entrance by going through the cellar They were hunting for plain

tiff, but could

not

find him,

In

the late afternoon

of

August 9th some

v-

enty-five to eighty men in about twenty-five automobiles, most of them

from

Luverne

met at a church about four miles from the sons house, and

proceeded from there in a

body

arriVing at the sons house about dusk he

plaintiff and

his

sons saw them coming,

went

into the house and fastened

the

screen

door on the Inner

side

he married son s wife and children were

also in the house and shortly became greatly excited and alarmed, as their

outcries demonstrated, Huntington and others

went

to the door and de

manded to know where the plaintiff was, and that they be permitted to

enter

he

son

who

stood inside the door refused to open it and declined

to admit them The defendant Long at once forced the door open and a

number of men immediately entered, including Long and Huntington, he

son

testified that he was assaulted by them and thrown out of the house,

They

denied

that

and testified that his bloody

face

was caused by

his own

struggles while they held him to prevent violence on

his

part, he plaintiff

stood at the head

of

the stairway

with

a gun and a fork handle, At

first

he

refused to come

down

or to permit anyone to come up, he other son was

induced by some of the defendants, or others

with

them, to go up and tell

hiS father that they did not intend Violence, he plaintiff sent back word by

his son that the defendant Long might come up and he would talk

with

him, He then came down

with

Long and was taken in Huntington s au

tomobile to Luverne Huntington drove, and som of the other defendants

were in the

car

with him and the plaintiff, Most of the crowd went with

them, but a few turned west toward the South Dakota line before Luverne

was reached, Plaintiff was held at Luverne until about eleven o clock, and

while there was refused permission to see

hiS

wife or to talk

with

her over

the telephone, About that hour he was again put

n

Huntington s

car

De

9


4/9

Exercises

Introduction t Law and Its Study

fendants Huntington, Long, Michaelson and Smith also got in and they

started for the South Dakota line, some fifteen miles away. accompanied by

another auto in which were defendants Turnbull, Connell, Kimmerling and

McDermott. They reached the State line about midnight. and were stopped

there by armed men whose faces were masked. They took Meints from

Huntington's

car

assaulted him, whipped him, threatened to shoot him,

besmeared his body with tar and feathers, and told him to cross the line

into South Dakota, and that if he ever returned t Minnesota he would be

hanged

On the foregOing facts there

can

be no doubt that from the time the

crowd reached the sons' house and on up to the time Meints

crossed

the

State line, he was coerced and compelled by a show of force to submit

himself t the will of others that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty,

falsely imprisoned for the time being, and that this was done to drive

him from the

State

of

Minnesota. And

so

we

say

at once that the trial court

erred in refusing to instruct a verdict for the plaintiff and against all defen

dants

who

took parr; for it cannot

be

maintained that because Meints may

have been,

in

their opinion, disloyal, and was interested

in

and gave sup

port to the Non-Partisan League Newspaper, that that

would

put him at

the mercy

of

defendants and invest them With the right and power to ad

judge and inflict punishment, nor would the fact that the defendants were

loyal men have the slightest tendency to excuse or ustify in the

eyes

of

the law the acts charged against them. , .. Mr. Cooley in his work on Torts

says

[that] n

•

any restraint put by

fear

or force upon the actions of another

is unlawful and constitutes a

false

imprisonment, unless a showing

of jus-

tification makes it a true or legal imprisonment.

The court yielded to the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff

could not recover for anything that was done prior to the assaults made

upon him, when the State line was reached, on the claim that he had

consented to everything that had happened before that, and so instructed

the jury over the objection of the plaintiff. This was prejudicial error. Can it

be seriously Hlought that it was the wish

of

plaintiff to leave

Rock

County?

His home was in Luverne, his wife was there, he had lived there for many

years all of his family and all of his interests were

in

Rock County; he had,

to the knowledge

of

some,

if not

all

of

the defendants but recently returned

to remain there. He evidently knew the purpose

of

these men

when

he

saw them coming, some of them had been hunting for him in the night

time a few days before. He armed himself to resist them, but they came in

such numbers and invaded the home in such a ruthless and high-handed

manner that resistance was obviously futile. He knew. and every rational

thought convinces, that

if

he had not submitted he

would

have been more

severely treated.

Who would

have the temerity

to

argue that they

would

have permitted him to remain, or after starring, to have alighted from Hun

tington's auto and return? While they held him for two or three hours in

Luverne he was refused permission

to

s

his wife or to talk with her over

the 'phone. He was in a large room with a crowd about him who jeered

him and

asked

him questions so thickly that there was no opportunity to

attempt to answer, and an attempt if it had been made, would have been

3


5/9

An Introduction t Judicial Opinions

Exercises

withOut avail. No argument can blot out the

fact,

which stands predomi-

nant throughout the record, that he was a prisoner from the time these

men reached his sons' house until he

passed

over the State line into South

Dakota, and everyone who reads the record must know that resistance on

his part

t

their will

would

not have been tolerated.

In

omer

v

Knowles,

17

Kan.

436, It

is

said:

False

Imprisonment

S

necessarily a wrongful Interference

with

the per-

sonal liberty of an individual. The wrong may be committed by words alone,

or

acts

alone, or

by

both, and

by

merely operating on the will

of

the

individual, or by

personal violence. or

by

both.

It is

not necessary that the

individual be confined within a prison, or within walls: or that he be as-

saulted, or even touched. It is not necessary that there should be any injury

done to the Individual's person, or to his character. or reputation. Nor

is

It

necessary

that the wrongful

act be

committed

with

malice, or ill will, or even

with the slightest wrongful Intention. Nor is It necessary that the

act

be under

c r of

any legal or judicial proceeding. All that

S necessary is,

that the in-

diVidual

be

restrained

of

hiS liberty without any sufficient legal

cause

therefor,

and by words or acts which

he

fears

to disregard.

In

ike

v Hanson 9 N.H. 49), the plaintiff did not intend to pay a tax,

and the collector was so informed. He, in demanding the tax, declared to

the plaintiff that he arrested her, and

she

paid the money under that re-

straint. It was held that the

facts

were

sufficient

t

sustain her action for

assault and false imprisonment. The court summarized the doctrine an-

nounced by

Starkie

on EVidence, thus:

That in ordinary practice words

are

sufficient to constitute an Imprison-

ment, if they impose a restraint upon the person and the plaintiff

is

accord-

ingly restrained. for

he S

not obliged

to

Incur

risk of

personal Violence and

Insult by resisting until actual violence be used .

. . .

The

court, acting on

its

conclusion

of

fact that plaintiff had consented

to everything before the

State

line was reached, instructed the

JUry

over

plaintiff's objection and exception that he could recover only against those

who maltreated him at the South Dakota line, and that if the evidence was

not

sufficient in the

judgment

of the JUry to satisfy them

as

to the identity

of

those

m n

they would return a verdict for the defendants, there being

no liability on the part

of

any of the defendants except those, if any, who

assaulted him there.

This we

think was also

error. As

already

said,

those

who took the plaintiff from the sons' home, those who participated to any

extent in so doing, those who aided in his deportation on the way, and

those who abused him at

the

State line and warned him that if he ever

returned to Minnesota he would be hanged, were all actively engaged in

the execution of one purpose, and the transaction throughout ... was for

the accomplishment of that purpose, .

It

is

also claimed by the defendants that

what

was done by them was

done to protect the plaintiff against others who might iruure him because

of

his disloyalty, or his reputation for disloyalty.

This

presents a

new

doctrine

unknown t us, and no authority has been cited to support it. We cannot

believe that the

law

will ever sanction the claim, either

In

defense or mfti-

3


6/9

Exercises

Introduction

to Law and Its Study

gation that the rights

of

one may be via/a ted for the purpose of preventing

others from doing the same thing

he judgment

is

reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

A decision's

citation

is

made

up

of

the

case's

name,

references

to

the

reporter or reporters

in which

the decision

was

printed, the name

of

the

court where the decision was

made,

and

the year of

the

decision. For

Meints, all this information

appears

in the

heading

on page 28.

The case name is composed by separating

the

last

names

of the parties

with a v. If the opinion was written by a trial court, the name of the plain

tiff

appears

first. In some appellate courts,

the name

of

the appellant comes

first, but in others the parties are listed as

they

were in the trial court. In a

case

with multiple plaintiffs

or defendants, the name

of only

the

first listed

per

side appears in

the

case name.

Reporters are publications

that print

opinions, mostly from appellate

courts.

There

are two kinds: official reporters published

under

the control

of

courts and

unofficial

ones published by

private

companies.

Most opinions

appear both

in an official

reporter and

in

at

least one unofficial reporter.

Some courts, however, publish their decisions in only one reporter, which

has

an official status

but an

unofficial format. Meints D. Huntington was

decided by

the Eighth

Circuit

of

the

United

States Court

of Appeals. Deci

sions of

the

United

States Courts

of Appeals

appear

only in

the

Federal Re

porter (abbreviated

F. ). The decision you have just

read

begins on page

245

of volume 276.

Thus,

Meints is cited to in the following form:

kfeints 'D. Huntington

276

F. 245 (8th Cir. 1921).

§J 2

The Interdependence

mong

Facts Issues

and

Rules

Many facts

are mentioned

in an opinion merely

to

proVide background,

continuity, or

what

journalists call human interest to what \\'ould other-

wise be a tedious

and

disjointed

recitation.

Of

the

remaining facts.

some

are

merely

related to

the

court's

thinking, while others caused the court to

come to its decision. This last

group

could be called the detcnllillati,;.:ej acts

or the essentialfacts. They are essential to

the

court's

decision because they

determined

it: if they

had

been different,

the

decision would hayc been dif

ferent.

The

determinative facts lead to the rule of the case - the rule of law

for

which the case stands

as

precedent

- and the discoyery of that

rule

is

the most important goal of case analysis. (Of

course,

where se\'eral issues

are raised

together

in a case,

the court must

make se\'eral rulings

and an

opinion

may thus

stand

for several different rules.)

2. In Chapter 16, you

will

learn

more

ahout constructing legal Ci taWl I l

32


7/9

An

Introduction to

Judicial

Opinions

§3.2

The

determinative faets ean be identified by asking the following ques

tion: i f

a

p rticul r f ct h d

not happened,

or It it h d

h ppened

dil er-

ently, would the

court h ve m de

(1 dUt erent decision? i

so,

that

fact is

one

of

the

determinative facts. This can be illustrated

through

a nonjudicial

decision of a

sort

with which you

might

recently

have had

some experience.

Assume

that

a rental agent has

just shown

you an

apartment

and

that

the

following are true:

A. The apartment is located half a mile from

the

law school.

B.

It is a

studio

apartment (one room plus a

kitchenette and bath

room)

C.

The

building

appears

to be well-maintained and safe.

D.

The

apartment

is

at the corner

of

the

building,

and

windows on

two sides provide ampic light

and

,'entilation.

E. t

is on

thc

third floor. away from the street,

and

the neighbors do

not appear to be disagreeable.

F.

The rent is

8400

per

month,

furnished.

G. The landlord will require a year's lease, and if you do not

stay

in

the

apartment

for

the

full year. subleasing it

to

someone else would

bc difficult.

H. You have a widowed aunt, with whom you get along well and who

lives

alone

in a

house 45 minutes

by

bus

from

the

law sehool,

and

she has offered to let you use the second floor of

her

house during

the sehool year.

The

house

and

neighborhood are safe

and

quiet,

and the living arrangements would be satisfactory to you.

I.

You have

made

a

commitment

to work

next summer

in EI Paso.

J. You have taken

out substantial

loans to go to law sehool.

K.

You

neither

own

nor

have access to a car.

L.

Reliable loeal people

havc

told you

that

you

are

unlikely to find

an

apartment that is better, eheaper, or more convenient than

the

one

you have

just

inspected.

V{hich facts are essential to your deeision? i

the apartmcnt had

been two

miles from the law sehool

(rather

than a half-mile), would your deeision be

different?

f

not, the first listed fact could not bc determinative. t might he

part

of

the

factual mosaic

and

might explain

why you

lookcd

at

the apart

mcnt in the first plaee, but you would not base your decision on it. (Go

through the

listed facts

and mark

in

the

margin

whether each

would

deter

mine your

decision.)

Facts recited spccifically in an opinion can sometimes be reformulated

generically. In

the

hypothetical above, for example, a

generic restatement

of fact might be the

follOWing: "you have

a rent-free

alternative

to

the

apartment, but the

altcrnative would

require 45

minutes of travel

each

way

plus

the expcnse

of public

transportation." That

formulation

is generic

be

cause it includes

other

speCific possibilities that in the end have

the

same

relevant characteristics and effect. It would include, for example, the follow

ing, seemingly different, facts: "you arc a member of the clergy in a religion

that

has

given you a leave of

absence

to

attend

law school: you

may

continue

33


8/9

§3.2

Introduction

to Law and Its Study

to live rent-free in the satisfaetory quarters your religion has provided, but

to get to the law school, you will have to walk 15 minutes and

then

ride a

subway for 30

minutes

morc, at the

same

cost as a bus.

A rule of law is, in essence, a principle that governs

how

a

particular

type

of decision is to be made or, put another way, how eertain types of faets

are

t

be

treated

by

the

official

(such

as a

judge) who

must

make

a decision.

Where

a

court

does not state a rule of the case,

or where

it ambiguously

states a rule, you might arrive at an arguably

supportable

formulation of the

rule by considering the determinative facts to have caused the result. There

is room for interpretive maneuver where one could reasonably interpret the

determinative facts narrowly (specifically) or

broadly

(generically).

Notice how different formulations of a rule can be extracted from the

apartment example. A narrow formulation might be the following:

A law

student

who has a

choice

between renting

an apartment

and

living in the second floor of an aunt's

house

should

choose

the

latter

where the

student

has had to borrow money to go to law school: where

the apartment s rent is 8400 per

month

but the aunt's second Hoor

is

free except for bus fares; where

the student must

work in

EI

Paso

during the summer; and where

t

is difficult loeally to

sublease

an

apartment.

Beeause this formulation

is

limited to

the

specifie facts given in

the

hypo

thetical, it could directly govern only an

extremely

small

number

of future

decision-makers. It would 110t for example, directly govern

the

member of

the clergy described above, even if she

must

spend

next

summer doing relief

work in Eritrea.

Although a

deeision-maker in a future situation might be able to reason

by analogy from

the narrow

rule

set

out above, a broader,

more

widely ap

plieable formulation, stated generically, would directly govern both situa

tions:

A student on a tight budgct

should

not sign a year's lease

where

the

student cannot live in the leased property during the summer and

where a nearly free

alternative

is available.

An even more general formulation would govern un even wider circle of

applications:

A

person

with limited funds

should not

lease

property

that that

person

cannot fully usc where there is a nearly free alternative.

The

follOWing however,

is

so

broad

as to be meaningless:

A person

should

not spend money in a way that would later lead to

problems.

34


9/9

Introduction to Judicial Opinions

§3.2

The

interpretation

of opinions is not easy. Cases do not unfold

their

nciples for the asking, wrote Cardozo.

They

yield up their

kernel

slowly

d painfully. l Courts often do not explicitly

state

the issue,

the

holding,

the rule for

which

the

case

is to

stand

as

precedent, and the

determina-

e facts are not usually labelled as such. Whenever a court gives less than

ull explanation, you must use what is explicitly stated to

pin

down what

only implied.

Fortunately, the determinative facts, the issue, the holding, and thc rule

:: all dependent on each other. In the

apartment

hypothetical, for exam-

if the issue were different - say, How shall I respond to

an

offer to

join

e

American

Automobile Association'?

the

selection of

determinative

~ t s

would also change. (In fact,

the only determinative one

would be fact

You

neither

own

nor have

access to a car. )

You

will oftcn find yourself

ing

what

the

court

tells you

about

the

issue

or

the

holding to

fill

in

what

e court has not told you about

the determinative

facts - and vice versa.

For example, if the court states

the

issue but does not identify

the

rule

spe

an introduction to judicial opinions

Documents