Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
2.How To Read Case Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

2.How To Read Case Report

2,198

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,198
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

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

×