How to read legal case reports
(How to write case briefs)
1. Title of the case
e.g., Mary Cereghino, Appellant
v.
Mart J. Vershum, and
Janet Coffyn, Respondents
Supreme Court of Oregon,
In Banc
(1) “ In Re Payne”---no adversary parties, only one party in the case
(2) “ Ex Parte Payne”---the court procedure with only one party’s
participation
(3) “United States v. Stevens”---public prosecution (One party is State or
Federal Government Agency.)
(4) “United States v. 45 Barrels of Whisky”---action based on in rem or quasi in rem
jurisdiction
2. Facts
(1) Parties
(2) Prior proceedings
(3) Theories of the parties
(4) The objectives of parties
(5) Legally significant facts and
background facts
(1)Parties
“Defendant-appellant-tortfeasor”
“Plaintiff-respondent-victim”
(2) Prior proceedings
“Trial court found against the
defendant;
Defendant appealed;
Court of appeals reversed the trial
court’s decision;
And now this appeal is before the
supreme court.”
(3) Theories of the parties
“Plaintiff’s claim: breach of contract; false
imprisonment
Defendant’s defense (contention): lack of
consideration; consent”
(4) The objectives of parties
“getting specific performance; getting
damages in the amount of $55,000; getting
acquitted”
(5) Legally significant facts and background
facts
3. Legal issues
• more than one
• legal issues ≠ disputes of parties
• issues of facts / issues of law
relevant rules
4. Reasoning
the application of those rules
the conclusion the court reached
• Macro-analysis
• Micro-analysis
•
Macro-analysis
A Reasoning Method: Syllogism
--All void contracts have no legal force.
(major premise)
--All contracts against fairness doctrine are
void contracts.
(minor premise)
∴All contracts against fairness doctrine have
no legal force.
(conclusion)
e.g., Tarbert Trading LTD v. Cometal, Inc
Tarbert Trading LTD v. Cometal, Inc
major premise:
All illegal contracts are void and unenforceable.
minor premise:
The contract between Cometal and Tarbet for
sale of red beans is illegal (because an illegal
certificate of origin is involved).
Conclusion: The contract between Cometal and
Tarbet is illegal and void, and their disputes
can’t be settled by the court.
• Micro-analysis
(1) parties’ different argumentations towards
“legal issue”
judge’s attitudes / opinions towards their
argumentations
A. argumentation of parties: “claim”, “allege”,
“complaint”, “assert”, “contend”, “argue”,
“urge”…
B. Opinions of judge: “I agree”, “I don’t
think.’ …
5. Holding: the last declaration
Memorandum opinion
concurring opinion
dissenting opinion
( affirmed, reversed, modified, vacated)
6. Comments (reaction)