Case Brief by ____________________________
Prosecution /
Plaintiff /
Appellant:
Citation:
Mr. Lightstone
Lightstone v. Wong, 2008
Date: ____________________________
Accused /
Defendant /
Respondent:
Date:
Ms. Wong
August 8, 2008
1. Facts of the Case: (Here the student should outline the essential facts of the case, particularly those facts
bearing upon or leading up to the issues in the next section. This section should outline the nature of the litigation,
what occurrences transpired, and, if the case is an appeal, what happened in the lower court(s) and on what
grounds the case was appealed. The facts of the case only include what happened up until the present
deliberation. Facts do not include the present judge’s ratio dicidendi or the present court holding.)
On September 6th, Mr. Lightstone, Ms. Wong, and Paige received a voice mail inviting them
to a birthday party for one of Paige’s friends on Saturday, September 13th. Before they could
respond, Ms. Wong realized that her brother’s birthday was coming up on September 8th. Ms. Wong
called her brother and suggested going out for dinner on the evening of September 7th. However, Ms
Wong’s brother did not like the idea of getting together while Paige still had a cold, as he was
concerned that his little girl might catch Paige’s cold. Ms. Wong’s brother suggested getting together
on September 13th if Paige is over her cold by that time.
Mr. Lightstone would prefer to commit to the birthday party for Paige’s friend on September
13th (as the parent’s of Paige’s friend don’t care whether Paige has a cold), while Ms. Wong would
prefer to “play things by ear” and keep Saturday open so that the family could either drop in on
Paige’s friend’s birthday party, or celebrate Ms. Wong’s brother’s birthday on September 13th if
Paige is over her cold by then.
2. Issue(s): (Here the student should outline the legal issues to be resolved by this particular court. Issues may
include matters of fact, or matters of law. In some cases, the appropriate application of specific legal tests are
being debated. In other cases, certain elements of the law need to be defined. Issues should generally be stated
in the form of concise questions.)
1. Does one owe a greater obligation to the individual who extends the first invite?
2. Does one owe a greater obligation to family over friends?
3. Does one owe a greater obligation to plans that are certain over plans that are tenuous?
Page
1
Case Brief by ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
3. Ratio Dicidendi: (Here the student should outline the court's reasoning behind its decision. The ratio should
strictly address, in order, the issues outlined in the previous section.)
Although the birthday party for Paige’s friend was extended before plans were being
considered for Ms. Wong’s brother’s birthday, the Lightstone family did not yet respond to the
original invite before considering plans for Ms. Wong’s brother. Without a response from the
Lightstone family, no obligation exists towards the family extending the original invite. For this
reason, these grounds do not offer any guidance for determining which plans to pursue on September
13th.
I think it is sufficient to say that blood is thicker than water when it comes to making a
decision between family and friends. Family is a social foundation that endures over time and space,
and family bonds should be nurtured whenever possible.
However, an invite to celebrate with Ms. Wong’s brother was extended by Ms. Wong to her
brother before the date of her brother’s birthday, and it was in fact Ms. Wong’s brother who rejected
this date. Thus, it is not unreasonable to suggest to Ms. Wong’s brother that the Lightstone family has
another engagement to attend on September 13th, as those birthday plans are already arranged by the
inviting family. Given that Ms. Wong’s brother’s birthday will already have passed by September
13th, celebrating Ms. Wong’s brother’s birthday on the 13th is perhaps not as critical as celebrating
Paige’s friends birthday on the date already arranged for his party.
4. Court Holding: (Here the student should indicate the final decision of the court in this case.)
The Lightstone’s should accept the invite for Paige’s friend’s birthday party, and seek an alternate
date to celebrate with Ms. Wong’s brother.
5. Analysis: (Here the student should evaluate the significance of the case, its relationship to other cases, its
place in history, and what it shows about the Court, its members, its decision-making processes, or the impact it
has on litigants, government, or society. It is here that the implicit assumptions and values of the Judges or
Justices should be probed, the “rightness” of the decision debated, and the logic of the reasoning considered.
This is the student’s commentary on the case. It is NOT simply a summary of what has already been stated
elsewhere in the brief.)
A great deal of the ratio dicidendi in this case focused on the feelings of the parties involved,
in that much of the decision is based on what the reasonable person would accept as polite and
respectful behaviour. The adjudicator assumes that Ms. Wong’s brother would be satisfied with Ms.
Wong’s earlier attempt to arrange a celebration before his birthday, even though these plans never
materialized. Thus, attempted actions seem to be taken to be as important as completed actions when
it comes to social etiquette. In other words, the old saying “it’s the thought that counts” seems to
have been applied to this ruling.
The ruling seems to establish an unanticipated precedent in the fact that the ratio dicidendi
infers that birthday celebrations that can occur on or before a birthday should take priority over plans
that will occur after a birthday. Such a precedent could definitely be abstracted to other forms of
social engagements, such as anniversaries, annual customary celebrations (such as Halloween and
Valentine’s Day), and religious holidays (such as Christmas and Easter).
Page
2