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。