Structure of a Legal
Opinion
Parts of the Opinion










Title and Heading
West Headnotes (not available on Lexis)
Introduction
Brief summary of decision
Facts/Background
Standard of Review
Issues/Analysis
Legal Reasoning
Holding
Conclusion
Title and Heading
 Official
Citation
 Court Name
 Plaintiffs and Defendants
 Docket Number
 Date of Decision
 Synopsis of Case
 Brief disposition of case
Official Citation






Case Name (Plaintiffs and Defendants)
Volume Number of Reporter
Reporter
Beginning Page Number
Court Name
Year of Decision
Example: NRDC v. Evans, 254 F.Supp.2d
434 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
West Headnotes

Written by Westlaw attorneys, not court!

Summarizes important legal issues and rules, in
order of appearance in case.

Each note corresponds with numbered heading
in text of case.

Useful for: legal research, skimming case,
getting a short summary of the applicable legal
rules
Introduction
Often includes:
Facts
Procedural history
Resolution of case
Standard of Review
Often crucial to the outcome of the case!
The more deferential the standard of review,
the more likely the defendant will prevail.
Analysis:
“IRAC”
Issue, Rule, Analysis,
Conclusion
IRAC
 Issue:
The legal question court is asked to
solve.
 Rule: The general legal rules governing
the issue (statutes and common law)
 Analysis: The court explains how the legal
rules apply to the facts of this case
 Conclusion: The court’s decision, or
holding, on each issue presented
Elements of a Case Brief
1. Identification of the Case
2. Facts
3. Procedural History
4. Issue(s) and Holding(s)
5. Reasoning
6. Evaluation
Identification of Case
1. Name of case
2. Full citation
3. Optional: vote, author of opinion, legal
topic classification, etc.
Example:
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954).
Vote: 9-0.
Author: Warren, C.J.
Legal Topics: Const. Law; Civil Rights
Facts
1. Principal parties to the dispute
2. Relationships among those parties
3. Events that led to the dispute
Procedural History
1. Which party/parties initiated legal
action against which others?
2. The legal claims and relief sought (but
keep this short!)
3. The disposition(s) of lower courts, if any
4. The authoring court’s disposition
Issue Statement
(a.k.a Question Presented)
A material question of fact or law that arises
from the claims, defenses, and arguments
of the parties
Hint: Try to state the issue as narrowly
as possible, tailoring it to the crucial
facts and legal rules of the case
EXAMPLE ISSUE STATEMENTS
BAD: “Did the trial court correctly
grant summary judgment for the
defendant?”
BETTER: “Is an employer liable in tort
for discharging an at-will employee for
a reason that violates public policy?”
BEST: “Is the employer liable in tort
for discharging an at-will employee
because of her refusal to participate in
a public ‘mooning’, a discharge that
contravened the public policy against
indecent exposure reflected in a
criminal statute?”
Holding: The court’s answer to the
question presented in the issue
Simple answer: Yes or No
Detailed answer: Transform issue into a
holding in the form of a statement
Example:
“Yes. By discharging the employee
because she refused to participate in a
public ‘mooning,’ the employer violated
public policy reflected in a criminal statute
prohibiting indecent exposure.”
Reasoning
1. Rule and Rationale
2. Distinguishing Dicta
Dicta: Statements in the opinion that help
explain the court’s reasoning but address
questions not squarely presented in the
dispute before the court
Evaluation
1. Was the reasoning convincing?
2. Did the court apply the proper
standard of review?
3. Did the court properly analyze the
statute or constitutional provision?
4. Did the court put the proper amount of
emphasis on equitable considerations?
Martin v. City of Seattle,
105 Wn.App. 1041 (2001)
Martin and other named plaintiffs appeal the trial
court's dismissal on summary judgment of their class
action lawsuit against the City of Seattle. The
purported class consists of all persons who received
parking tickets as a result of short-changing meters
during a six-year period. Each parking ticket incurred
a $20 fine.
We do not reach the merits of the claim because we
conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the
case. Under RCW 2.06.030, the appellate jurisdiction
of this court does not extend to civil actions at law
for the recovery of money or personal property when
the original amount in controversy does not exceed
the sum of $200. Appellants may not aggregate their
claims against the City in order to reach the $200
limit so as to confer jurisdiction. [FN1] Therefore, we
must dismiss the case.