Class 6 Meeting Notes


Case Summary- aka briefing a case-this is an outline of a written judicial opinion.
It is a good idea to summarize a case because:
a) Opinions are long, hard to understand, filled with subtleties
b) It’s an easy way to keep track of cases on an issue you have
c) Stare decisis-precedence
d) You might be asked to do it
e) Ease of reference-information all in one place
 How to brief a case:
a) Read it all the way through for the first time just for general understanding
b) Identify major components
 Case and party information
 Court where it was decided
 Date it was decided-precedential value
 Include citation (e.g. 517 U.S. 830)
c) Identify procedural history-how did it get here and from where procedurally?
d) Identify the issue(s) court is trying to resolve; posed as a question
e) Identify the facts that are relevant to case; they decide issue
f) Identify the holding which is the courts overall answer to the question presented to the court; it is the
bottom-line; usually one sentence
g) Identify the rational which explains how you got from issue to holding; it is the court’s reasoning
h) Identify the result-who wins the case?
 Judicial Opinions could be based on:
 Case law
 Statutory law (codes)
 Administrative law
 Public policy
 Ends-oriented decision making
 Interpretation of Constitution
 Dicta=language in judicial opinion with no precedential value; not necessary for the holding
 Make it simple, highlight the issue and mark with I, procedural history and mark with PH and so on.
 Synthesizing case law refers to reading several cases to conclude what the current state of law is over the course of years.
Law changes over time and all laws are codifications of morals. The law tries to reflect our current thinking.
 Example: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)
 No recovery (impact rule)
 Amaya v. Home Ice-In order for a person to recover under NIED, states a person must experience
something physical like shock, they must be a relative of the victim (1 degree), must have been in the zone of
danger or close to the accident.
 Dillon v. Legg-court gets rid of the zone of danger test and adds that for recovery the plaintiff
must have seen the accident
 Krouse v. Graham-court says a plaintiff does not have to witness the accident but must have
physical as well as mental injury.
 Thing v. Lachusa- court says in order to recover you must be present at the scene and be closely
related to the victim and be aware that the victim is injured. Plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress beyond
what a disinterested witness would feel.
 Fife v. Astenions-court says plaintiff must be at the scene of the accident when the accident
happens in order to receive any kind of recovery.
 Wils v. Hom-court says you can receive recovery if you are sensorily aware of accident/injury and
that you don’t have to see it actually.