Briefing a Case
•
•
•
•
Heading (or Citation)
Statement of Facts
Procedural History
Issues
– Procedural Issue
– Substantive Issue
•
•
•
•
Judgment (or Disposition)
Holding (Rule of Law/Legal Principle)*
Reasoning
Evaluation/Additional Comments
• Heading: Van Camp v. McAfoos, 156 N.W.2d 878
(Iowa 1968)
• Statement of Facts:
– D-McAfoos, age 3
– crashed into P-Van Camp while riding his
tricycle
– P injured
– **No K why crashed
• Procedural History:
– TC granted D’s motion dismiss
– P appeals.
Motion to Dismiss – Tort Cases
Does P’s complaint allege facts that if true establish a
claim under tort law?
No
Yes
Grant
Motion
to
Dismiss
Deny
Motion
to
Dismiss
• Issue:
– Procedural Issue:
• Option 1: Did appellant/P plead a cause of
action?
• Option 2: Should TC have granted m. dismiss?
– Substantive Issue:
• Does P successfully plead a cause of action if
simply alleges D’s action harmed her
• or must P show D at fault/ engaged in wrong
doing
Spotting the Substantive Issue
• Phrases to look for:
– “Issue” or “question”
“The issue/question before the court . . . .”
– “Whether”
• “This case turns on whether . . . .”
• “We are asked to decide whether . . . .”
• Other stuff to consider:
– Look at the chapter headings/subheadings in your
case book
– Look at what parties are arguing about
– Look at description of lower court decision
Briefing a Case -- Judgment
• Case on appeal
– Whether appellant’s request to court granted
• “Affirmed” (or “sustained”) – lower court decision upheld
• “Reversed” – lower court decision struck down
– What happens next procedurally
• “Vacated” ” – lower court’s action moot
• “Dismissed” ” – case over
• “Remanded” ” – back to lower court for additional legal
process
• Case at trial court
– Whether court grants or denies plaintiff or
defendant’s (i.e., “moving party’s”) motion
• “Motion granted” (or “motion sustained”)
• “Motion denied”
• Judgment (or Disposition): Affirmed
• Holding/Rule of Law:
– Substantive issue:
• Yes, P must show D at fault/acted wrongfully
(i.e., acted intentionally or negligently)
• Indiv L for harm cause P only if conduct =
wrongful
• Causing harm w/o fault ≠ sufficient
– Procedural issue:
• No, P no allege facts that if true est claim under
tort law.
• Complaint must allege facts showing D’s
conduct = wrongful
Test Your Understanding
• Which facts are legally relevant and why?
• How do these facts satisfy/not satisfy the
relevant legal rule?
• What is the outcome if you apply the legal
rule to a different set of facts (see notes
following case for examples)?
Evaluation/Personal Impressions
• Do you agree with the decision? Was the court’s
reasoning persuasive? What are the counterarguments for a different result or rule?
• Is the court’s holding and reasoning consistent with
other cases we’ve read?
• Does the holding further the policies/values underlying
the rule?
• What is the impact of the holding on economic
considerations, social policy, or justice ?
• Are there any situations where the decision’s legal
principle would lead to a problematic result?
*Tip: Explore questions raised in notes following case