Libr 430 Week 8

662 views
603 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
662
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
335
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Libr 430 Week 8

  1. 1. LIBR 430 WEEK 8 Synthesizing Legal Information
  2. 2. Analogies & Distinctions <ul><li>Case comparison is based on the premise that like cases should be decided in like manner </li></ul><ul><li>Making valid predictions involves drawing analogies from similar cases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar issues, possibly fact patterns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicable reasoning & policy statements </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. When Reasoning, Discussing and Writing <ul><li>Demonstrate that the case is binding legal authority </li></ul><ul><li>Assure the reader that the facts you’re comparing were key facts in the decided case </li></ul><ul><li>Give reader enough information to make independent comparison </li></ul>
  4. 4. Analyzing Multiple Cases <ul><li>Multiple cases might address a particular issue but with many different variations </li></ul><ul><li>Precedents oftentimes has different fact patterns to client’s case and one another with different results </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: Reconcile diverse results and advise client on the predicted outcome </li></ul>
  5. 5. Synthesis <ul><li>Purpose – to find collective meaning in cases </li></ul><ul><li>Rules of law are clarified through multiple cases </li></ul><ul><li>Involves more than listing cases </li></ul>
  6. 6. When to Synthesize <ul><li>No express definition of an element </li></ul><ul><li>Rule not expressly stated </li></ul><ul><li>Definition is vague </li></ul><ul><li>Cases analogized don’t address all the determinative facts </li></ul><ul><li>Several cases are all relevant in some way </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>Cannot fully understand a rule of law from just one case </li></ul><ul><li>After reviewing several cases, communicate the standards the court will apply </li></ul><ul><li>Collective legal proposition more important than a list of case briefs </li></ul>Why Synthesize
  8. 8. Synthesis is a Common Process <ul><li>We synthesize information daily </li></ul><ul><li>Creating a chart may help, especially if it is a complex issue </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis can be a difficult skill that requires practice </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land to smell his award winning roses. </li></ul><ul><li>Held: Neighbor liable for trespass </li></ul>Example
  10. 10. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a mob of angry bees. Held: Neighbor not liable for trespass.
  11. 11. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. While evading his pursuers, neighbor accidentally tramples on Mr. Jones' award winning roses. Held: Neighbor liable for damages to roses.
  12. 12. What do the Three Cases Stand for Collectively? A. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land to smell his award winning roses. Held: Neighbor liable for trespass. B. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. Held: Neighbor not liable for trespass. C. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. While evading his pursuers, Neighbor accidentally tramples on Mr. Jones' award winning roses. Held: Professor Berry liable for damages to roses.
  13. 13. Look for the Common Threads <ul><li>In each case, Neighbor was trespassing on someone’s land without permission, but the results were different </li></ul><ul><li>The decision maker considered different factors to modify the rule. </li></ul>
  14. 14. How? <ul><li>The proposition in the first case is that a person is liable for trespass if they enter someone’s land without permission </li></ul>
  15. 15. How? <ul><li>The second case modifies the rule established in the first case. A person is relieved of liability from trespass when it is necessary to protect oneself from physical danger. </li></ul>
  16. 16. How Cont’d. <ul><li>This case refines the rule further. When someone trespasses out of necessity, they are still liable for any actual damage to the property. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Sample Chart No, but liable for property damage Yes Yes C. Yes No No Yes B. Yes Yes No No A. Yes Liable for Trespass Property Damage Necessity Trespass
  18. 18. What’s the collective meaning? <ul><li>&quot;A person who enters the land of another without permission is liable for trespass except where entry is necessary to avoid physical danger, in which case a person is liable only for actual damage to the property.&quot; </li></ul>
  19. 19. Using the Factors <ul><li>Identifying the factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Factors – categories of facts the court considers to decide an issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Elements are conditions that must be present, but factors are guidelines the court will consider </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. First, Find the Common Threads <ul><li>Identify the common threads in the cases </li></ul><ul><li>Look for patterns that explain the holding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A particular fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Combination of factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy considerations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Once locate pattern, easier to locate the factors </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. After Locating Common Threads <ul><li>Tie the common threads together </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The synthesized rule should reflect the different cases, definitions, limitations and exceptions, in a coherent statement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Organize your analysis around the common threads, not the individual cases </li></ul><ul><li>Apply synthesized rule to facts on hand </li></ul>

×