Research, Writing, and Analysis

BRIEFING A CASE

A case brief is a written analysis of a judicial opinion. A judicial opinion is

also commonly known as a case or a decision. There are many different methods of
case briefing, but all methods have the same basic goal: to help you understand the
significance of an opinion. Lawyers often use some form of case briefs to keep track
of their research. Law students also use case briefs as aids for class discussion, as
well as for studying and review.

A complete case brief includes all that is relevant to the court’s decision:
who the parties are, what they want, how the trial and any previous appellate
courts responded to the parties’ arguments, the relevant facts, the issue, the court’s
holding, and the court’s reasoning.

The obvious first step of case briefing is reading the case. Before you begin to
read, determine why you are reading the case. You will understand the case more
easily if you read with a purpose. Effective lawyers read methodically and
carefully. Chapter 3 of A Lawyer Writes contains many excellent suggestions
regarding how to effectively read a case. Though assigned later, you may want to
read Section 3.2 before preparing your case brief. In any event, first read through
the opinion at least once, noting the basic facts, procedural history, and outcome.
Then, read the case again and complete your brief. Use your own words whenever
possible but do quote the opinion when the court’s precise language is important for
understanding the case. After writing your case brief, you may want to go back and
change some parts of it. For example, you may realize that you did not include all
the relevant facts or that you included some irrelevant ones. There is nothing
wrong with this back-and-forth process: in fact, it shows that you are thinking about
what you are doing. The case brief is a record of your understanding of the case
and, as such, should always be open to revision.

It is important that you read and understand every word in a case. Use both
a standard dictionary and a legal dictionary, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, which
is available on Westlaw, to look up words you do not understand.
 Ideally, a court’s opinion should clearly lay out the court’s application of the
relevant law to the facts for each issue in the case. However, an opinion may not
state the issue explicitly; important facts may be scattered throughout the opinion
or even be missing; the law on which the court relied may be unstated or
incomplete; the court’s application of law to facts may be cursory. Because cases
can be confusing to read, do not expect to understand every case completely the first
(or even the second) time you read it.

Here is one case-briefing format. You may have seen other, similar ones.
Again, they all attempt to do the same thing: to help you to understand the case and
to provide you with a summary that will make it unnecessary for you to re-read and
re-analyze the case every time you need to refer to it in the future – for example,
when you are reviewing for class or studying for an exam. Professors in other
courses may suggest a different format. In each course, you should follow the
advice of that professor, just as you would follow differing instructions from various
supervising attorneys once you start practicing law.

A CASE-BRIEFING FORMAT

(1) CASE NAME AND CITATION, INCLUDING COURT AND YEAR

Which court decided the case? When did it do so? Where may the text of the
case be found (i.e., the legal citation)? (You will learn more about citation form in
later RWA classes).

(2) PARTIES

Identify the parties. Who is the plaintiff (or appellant or petitioner)? Who is
the defendant (or appellee or respondent)? Because it is ambiguous, do not label the
parties as only appellant or appellee and petitioner or respondent. Identify the
parties through labels that indicate their roles in the underlying factual dispute
(e.g., buyer, seller, borrower, lender, accident victim, driver of car that struck
victim). While you may want to include the proper names of the parties, proper
names and procedural role labels alone (e.g., “Plaintiff is Smith”) are not sufficient.
Instead, “Plaintiff is Smith, the homeowner” is better.

2
 (3) FACTS

What happened before the parties arrived in court – before the plaintiff even
thought of filing a lawsuit? Such facts are an integral part of the legal analysis
because judges rule only in the context of a particular factual dispute. State all –
but only – those facts that are necessary, or relevant, to the court’s decision
regarding the relevant issue. Chronological order is usually the clearest. If an
opinion omits what you believe is an important fact, indicate that omission. As
stated earlier, it may take a few attempts to separate the irrelevant from the
relevant facts. Keep in mind that the “Facts” section should not be the largest part
of your case brief.

(4) PROCEDURAL HISTORY

What has happened legally? Who sued whom, and under what legal theory of
recovery (e.g., negligence, trespass, breach of contract)? If the case is on appeal,
what was the result at the trial court level (e.g., summary judgment granted for
plaintiff; defendant’s motion for directed verdict granted)? Who appealed? If only
part of the trial court’s judgment was appealed, which part? What happened in any
prior appellate proceeding? (You will, for the most part, read appellate opinions in
law school.)

(5) ISSUE

The issue is the precise legal question the court must resolve to decide the
case. If there is more than one issue in the case, number them. Phrase the issues
in question form. An issue involves (a) a dispute between the parties over (b) the
meaning or application of one or more rules of law (e.g., statutory or common law)
based on (c) the key facts of the case. A key fact is one which, if changed or omitted,
might lead to a different result. When framing the issue, narrow your question to
the specific issue the court must answer. If you phrase a question too broadly, the
case brief may not be useful to you when you refer to it later.

Here are some examples:

(a) Under the Michigan dog bite statute, did a girl provoke a dog to bite her
when she picked up a football she had dropped, while juggling approximately six
inches from the dog as he was eating?
3
 Note that this question identifies the key facts (the girl was bitten as she
picked up the ball, the dog was eating at the time, the girl dropped the ball as she
was juggling approximately six inches from the dog) and the relationship between
these facts and the legal principle involved (were the girl’s actions provocation as
defined by the Michigan dog bite statute).

Another example:

(b) Did a police officer hold the status of a licensee (who takes the premises as
he finds them) when he fell through a rotten deck while investigating a suspected
burglary at the defendant-homeowners’ residence, in response to an automatic
burglar alarm?

Over time and with practice, you will develop the skill of stating the issue
“narrowly” enough (but not too narrowly) by identifying both the legal principle and
the key facts accurately. The statement of the issue is important; take the time and
effort to get it right.

(6) HOLDING

The holding is the court’s answer to the question posed in the issue. Stated
another way, the holding is the court’s decision on the issue before it. If there is
more than one issue, there will be more than one holding.

Examples:

(a) No. The girl’s actions did not constitute provocation under the statute.

(b) Yes. A police officer held the status of a licensee when he was on private
residential property in his official capacity in response to a burglar alarm.

(7) REASONING

Why did the court rule as it did? Explain, step by step, the analysis the court
used to support or justify its holding. This includes a statement of the law on which
the court relied, the logical analytical steps the court took in applying the law to the

4
specific facts of the case, and any public policy or policies on which the court relied.
This section of the case brief will usually be the longest.

The reasoning begins with a statement of the controlling principle of law on

which the court relied in reaching its decision. The principle of law may have come
from a constitution, a statute, a regulation, a previous case, or any combination of
these. The rule of law is the framework for the legal analysis that follows. It
provides a general legal principle that applies to a particular set of facts.

The reasoning section then describes each logical step the court took to apply
the controlling rule of law to the case at hand and the justifications that the court
gave, including any public policy reasons for its choices.

Often, a statement that may appear to be a part of a court’s holding will be

mere dictum, which is an opinion or other remark by a judge that goes beyond the
facts of the case at hand and is not a necessary part of the court’s reasoning or
result for the parties before the court. Even though statements of dicta are not
necessary to the case in which they appear and thus are not part of the binding rule
of the case, they can offer important guidance as to how the legal rule of that case
may be applied in future cases (especially when they come from the highest court of
a jurisdiction). Thus, include and identify dicta, if any, in your case brief.

The following pages contain an edited version of a case, Vosburg v. Putney,

and a sample brief of that case. Consider first briefing the case yourself and then
comparing your brief to the sample that follows.

5
 Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891)1

Lyon, J.
“[The plaintiff, 14 years old at the time in question, brought an action for
battery against the defendant, 12 years old. The complaint charged that the
defendant kicked the plaintiff in the shin in a schoolroom in Waukesha, Wisconsin,
after the teacher had called the class to order. The kick aggravated a prior injury
that the plaintiff had suffered and caused his leg to become lame. The jury found,
in a special verdict, that the plaintiff had, during the month of January 1889,
received an injury just above the knee, which became inflamed and produced puss
and that such injury had, on February 20, 1889, nearly healed at the point of the
injury. The jury further found that the plaintiff had not, prior to February 20, been
lame as a result of such injury, nor had his tibia in his right leg become inflamed or
diseased to some extent before he received the blow or kick from the defendant.
Instead, it was the defendant’s kick that was the exciting cause of the injury to the
plaintiff’s leg. And, although the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot,
did not intend to do plaintiff any harm, the jury awarded plaintiff twenty-five
hundred dollars. The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff on the special
verdict and the defendant appealed.]
The jury having found that the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his
foot, did not intend to do him any harm, counsel for defendant maintains that the
plaintiff has no cause of action, and that the defendant’s motion for judgment on the
special verdict should have been granted. In support of his proposition, counsel
quotes from 2 Greenl. Ev. 83, the rule that ‘the intention to do harm is of the
essence of an assault.’ Such is the rule, no doubt, in actions or prosecutions for
mere assaults. But this is an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and
battery. In such cases, the rule is correctly stated, in many of the authorities cited
by counsel, that plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful or that
the defendant intended the act itself, even if he did not intend the subsequent
harm. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily
be unlawful. Hence, as applied to this case, kicking the plaintiff by the defendant
was an unlawful act, and the defendant desired to kick plaintiff. Had the parties
been upon the playgrounds of the school, engaged in the usual boyish sports, the

1
This edited version of Vosberg is from Ruta K. Stropus & Charlotte D. Taylor, Bridging the Gap Between College
and Law School 31-32 (2d ed. 2009).

6
defendant being free from malice, wantonness, or negligence, and intending no
harm to plaintiff in what he did, we should hesitate to hold the act of the defendant
unlawful or that he could be held liable in this action. Some consideration is due to
the implied license of the playgrounds. But it appears that the injury was inflicted
in the school, after it had been called to order by the teacher and after the regular
exercises of the school had commenced. Under these circumstances, no implied
license to do the act complained of existed, and such act was a violation of the order
and decorum of the school and necessarily unlawful. In addition, although the
defendant might not have intended the plaintiff to become lame, there is no
question that he intended to kick him. One who intends the act is also responsible
for the subsequent harm. Hence, we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and
verdict, the action may be sustained.”

Sample Case Brief

(1) Case Name and Citation, Including Court and Year

Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

(2) Parties

Plaintiff-appellee (Vosburg) is a child who was kicked and subsequently rendered

lame by the defendant.
Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff.

(3) Facts

After the teacher had called the class to order and while in the classroom, the
defendant-student intentionally kicked the shin of the plaintiff, a fellow classmate.
Aggravating a prior injury, the kick caused the plaintiff to become lame. The
defendant did not intend any harm to the plaintiff.

7
(4) Procedural History

Jury found for the plaintiff; the defendant appeals.

(5) Issue

Is the intent element of battery satisfied when a child kicked the shin of a school
classmate in the classroom after class had been called to order, even though the
child did not intend to harm the classmate.

(6) Holding

Yes. The intent element of battery is satisfied because the defendant intended to do
the act and the act was unlawful. Kicking others is not lawful in a school
classroom. The defendant does not have to intend the subsequent harm. Decision
affirmed.

(7) Reasoning

In an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery, the plaintiff
must show “either that the intention was unlawful,” i.e., that the defendant
intended the unlawful harm (here that the defendant intended to render the
plaintiff lame), or that the defendant intended an unlawful act (here that the
defendant intended to kick the plaintiff, while in the classroom, when school was in
session).

Here, the defendant intended to kick the plaintiff, and kicking the plaintiff was an
unlawful act. Thus, the defendant intended an unlawful act.

The kick was unlawful because it occurred in the classroom after class had been
called to order by the teacher. Therefore, there was no “implied license” to kick a
classmate.

8
The kick was a “violation of the order and decorum of the school” and thus unlawful.

It does not matter that the defendant did not intend to make the plaintiff lame.
“One who intends the act is also responsible for the subsequent harm.”

Consider: What is the rule of the case?