423 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2014
    1. Dicta Dicta refers to anything that isn't relevant to the case's holding. Often judges will use a case to expound upon their theories of the law. The theories may not be relevant to the case at hand, but it gives the judge a chance to give direction to the lower courts by putting the theory in writing. Dicta does not carry weight as a precedent. But it's useful to note how the court might have ruled given a different set of circumstances.

      dicta refers to anything that isn't relevant to the case's holding.

    1. Reasoning The reasoning gives the reader insight into how the court arrived at its decision. It is instructive in nature. Courts often back their holdings with several lines of reasoning, each of which should be summarized in this section. Unnecessary repetition of facts or the issue should be avoided. A court�s rationale for its holding might be a simple explanation of its thought process. Alternatively, the reasoning might be based on the plain language of the statute, Congressional intent, the re-enactment doctrine, or other common means of resolving judicial disputes.

      Several lines of reasoning may be used to back the Court's holdings and may be:

      • a simple explanation of the Court's thought processes
      • based on the plain language of the statute
      • congressional intent
      • re-enactment doctrine
      • other common means of resolving judicial disputes (what are those?)
    2. Holding As the issue�s complement, the holding consists of two parts: (1) a “yes” or “no” conclusion to the brief�s issue and (2) the rule of law the court establishes. The rule of law is a guidepost that courts use to decide future cases based on the legal concept of stare decisis (judicial tendency to follow prior decisions).

      The holding has two parts:

      1) A decision on the legal issue (yes/no)

      2) The rule of law the court establishes

    3. Beginning the issue with “are” or “is” often leads to a clearer and more concise expression of the issue than beginning it with “may,” “can,” “does,” or “should.” The latter beginnings may lead to vague or ambiguous versions of the issue. Examine the following alternative statements of the judicial issue from Aiken Industries, Inc. (TC, 1971), acq.: Issue 2 (Poor): Are the interest payments exempt from the withholding tax? Issue 2 (Poor): Should the taxpayer exempt the interest payments from withholding tax? In the first version of issue 2 above, to which interest payments and which withholding tax is the writer referring? The issue does not stand alone since it cannot be precisely understood apart from separately reading the brief�s facts. The extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. In the second version, the question can be interpreted as a moral or judgment issue rather than a legal one. Whether the taxpayer should do (or should not do) something may be a very different issue than the legal question of what the law requires. A legal brief, however, should focus on the latter. Rewriting issue 2 as follows leads to a clearer expression of the precise issue: Issue 2 (Better): Are interest payments exempt from the U.S. 30% withholding tax when paid to an entity established in a tax treaty country for no apparent purpose other than to escape taxation on the interest received?

      Extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. The summary of the issue should be written to avoid opening the question to interpretation as a moral or judgment issue; instead focus on the legal question.

    4. Issues should be stated so that they “stand alone.” That is, issues should be completely understandable without reference to the facts or other sections of the brief or judicial decision. Use of the definite article “the” indicates that the issue does not stand alone when it alludes to prior information.

      The summary of the issue should "stand alone" or be self-contained such that enough context and background is included in the summary to not have to refer to the document it came from.

      I think this is an important pattern to use elsewhere, as well.

    1. b. Identify legally relevant facts, t hat is, those facts that tend to prove or disprove an issue before the court. The relevant facts tell what happened before the parties enter ed the judicial system. c. Identify procedurally significant facts. You should set out (1) the cause of action (C/A) (the law the plaintiff claimed was broken), (2) relief the plaintiff requested, (3) defenses, if any, the defendant raised.
    2. Identify the relationship/status of the parties (Note: Do not merely refer to the parties as the plai ntiff/defendant or appellant/appellee; be sure to also include more descr iptive generic terms to identify the relationship/status at issue, e.g., buyer/seller, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, etc.)

      Identify the factual relationship of the parties, not just the procedural relationship.

      Examples of procedural:

      • plaintiff/defendant
      • appellant/appellee

      Examples of factual:

      • buyer/seller
      • employer/employee
      • landlord/tenant
    3. Functions of case briefing A. Case briefing helps you acquire the skills of case analysis and legal reasoning. Briefing a case helps you understand it. B. Case briefing aids your memory. Briefs help you remember the cases you read (1) for class discussion, (2) fo r end-of-semester review for final examinations, and (3) for writing and analyzing legal problems.

      Briefing a case helps you understand it and acquire skills of:

      • case analysis
      • legal reasoning

      Case briefing is good for:

      • aids memory
      • class discussion
      • end-of-semester review for final exams
      • writing and analyzing legal problems
    1. A CAUTIONARY NOTE Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

      Read the case to identify:

      • unarticulated premises
      • logical fallacies
      • manipulation of the factual record
      • distortions of precedent.

      Then ask:

      • How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law?

      • What does it show about judicial policymaking?

      • Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness?

      • How might it have been better decided?

  2. Jan 2014
    1. When a law student briefs a case, he typically identifies several pieces of information: the parties, the procedural posture, the facts, the issue , the h olding, and the analysis. Although it seems foreign at first, identifying this information, understanding judicial opinions , and applying their reasoning to new cases becomes much easier with practice.

      The legal brief described here is a student brief, not to be confused with an appellate brief; the distinction is described in more detail in How To Brief a Case.

    1. Student brief A student brief is a short summary and analysis of the case prepared for use in classroom discussion. It is a set of notes, presented in a systematic way, in order to sort out the parties, identify the issues, ascertain what was decided, and analyze the reasoning behind decisions made by the courts. Although student briefs always include the same items of information, the form in which these items are set out can vary. Before committing yourself to a particular form for briefing cases, check with your instructor to ensure that the form you have chosen is acceptable.
    2. Appellate brief An appellate brief is a written legal argument presented to an appellate court. Its purpose is to persuade the higher court to uphold or reverse the trial court’s decision. Briefs of this kind are therefore geared to presenting the issues involved in the case from the perspective of one side only. Appellate briefs from both sides can be very valuable to anyone assessing the legal issues raised in a case. Unfortunately, they are rarely published. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court for which briefs are regularly available in published form. The Landmark Briefs series (REF. LAW KF 101.9 .K8) includes the full texts of briefs relating to a very few of the many cases heard by this court. In addition, summaries of the briefs filed on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant for all cases reported are included in the U.S. Supreme Court Reports. Lawyer’s Ed., 2nd. series (REF. LAW KF 101 .A42).
    1. The criminal investigation and today’s indictment of Mr. Swartz has been directed by the United States Attorney’s Office. It was the government’s decision whether to prosecute, not JSTOR’s. As noted previously, our interest was in securing the content. Once this was achieved, we had no interest in this becoming an ongoing legal matter.

      How was this initiated?

  3. Oct 2013
    1. There are three kinds of rhetoric: A. political (deliberative), B. forensic (legal), and C. epideictic (the ceremonial oratory of display). Their (1) divisions, (2) times, and (3) ends are as follows: A. Political (1) exhortation and dehortation, (2) future, (3) expediency and inexpediency; B. Forensic (1) accusation and defence, (2) past, (3) justice and injustice; C. Epideictic (1) praise and censure, (2) present, (3) honour and dishonour.

      This is an interesting paragraph.

  4. Aug 2013