Structure of a Legal Structure of a Legal OpinionOpinion

Parts of the OpinionParts of the Opinion

Title and HeadingTitle and Heading West Headnotes (not available on Lexis)West Headnotes (not available on Lexis) Introduction Introduction Brief summary of decisionBrief summary of decision Facts/BackgroundFacts/Background Standard of ReviewStandard of Review Issues/AnalysisIssues/Analysis Legal ReasoningLegal Reasoning HoldingHolding ConclusionConclusion

Title and HeadingTitle and Heading

Official CitationOfficial Citation Court NameCourt Name Plaintiffs and Defendants Plaintiffs and Defendants Docket NumberDocket Number Date of DecisionDate of Decision Synopsis of CaseSynopsis of Case Brief disposition of caseBrief disposition of case

Official CitationOfficial Citation

Case Name (Plaintiffs and Defendants)Case Name (Plaintiffs and Defendants) Volume Number of ReporterVolume Number of Reporter ReporterReporter Beginning Page NumberBeginning Page Number Court Name Court Name Year of DecisionYear of Decision

Example: Example: NRDC v. EvansNRDC v. Evans, 254 F.Supp.2d , 254 F.Supp.2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).434 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

West HeadnotesWest Headnotes

Written by Westlaw attorneys, not court!Written by Westlaw attorneys, not court!

Summarizes important legal issues and rules, in Summarizes important legal issues and rules, in order of appearance in case. order of appearance in case.

Each note corresponds with numbered heading Each note corresponds with numbered heading in text of case. in text of case.

Useful for: legal research, skimming case, getting Useful for: legal research, skimming case, getting a short summary of the applicable legal rulesa short summary of the applicable legal rules

IntroductionIntroduction

Often includes:Often includes:

FactsFacts

Procedural historyProcedural history

Resolution of caseResolution of case

Standard of ReviewStandard of Review

Often crucial to the outcome of the case!Often crucial to the outcome of the case!

The more deferential the standard of review, The more deferential the standard of review, the more likely the defendant will prevail.the more likely the defendant will prevail.

Analysis:Analysis:“IRAC”“IRAC”

Issue, Rule, Analysis, Issue, Rule, Analysis, ConclusionConclusion

IRACIRAC

Issue: The legal question court is asked to Issue: The legal question court is asked to solve. solve.

Rule: The general legal rules governing Rule: The general legal rules governing the issue (statutes and common law)the issue (statutes and common law)

Analysis: The court explains how the legal Analysis: The court explains how the legal rules apply to the facts of this caserules apply to the facts of this case

Conclusion: The court’s decision, or Conclusion: The court’s decision, or holding, on each issue presentedholding, on each issue presented

Elements of a Case BriefElements of a Case Brief1. Identification of the Case

2. Facts

3. Procedural History

4. Issue(s) and Holding(s)

5. Reasoning

6. Evaluation

Identification of CaseIdentification of Case1. Name of case1. Name of case

2. Full citation2. Full citation3. Optional: vote, author of 3. Optional: vote, author of opinion, legal topic classification, opinion, legal topic classification, etc. etc. Example:Example:Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education, 347 , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). 873 (1954). Vote: 9-0. Vote: 9-0. Author: Warren, C.J.Author: Warren, C.J.Legal Topics: Const. Law; Civil Legal Topics: Const. Law; Civil RightsRights

FactsFacts

1. Principal parties to the dispute1. Principal parties to the dispute

2. Relationships among those parties 2. Relationships among those parties

3. Events that led to the dispute3. Events that led to the dispute

Procedural HistoryProcedural History

1.1.Which party/parties initiated Which party/parties initiated legal action against which legal action against which others?others?

2. The legal claims and relief 2. The legal claims and relief sought (but keep this short!)sought (but keep this short!)

3. The disposition(s) of lower courts, if any3. The disposition(s) of lower courts, if any

4. The authoring court’s disposition4. The authoring court’s disposition

Issue StatementIssue Statement(a.k.a Question (a.k.a Question

Presented)Presented)

A material question of fact or law A material question of fact or law that arises from the claims, defenses, that arises from the claims, defenses, and arguments of the parties and arguments of the parties

Hint: Try to state the issue as Hint: Try to state the issue as narrowly as possible, tailoring it narrowly as possible, tailoring it to the crucial facts and legal to the crucial facts and legal rules of the case rules of the case

BAD: “Did the trial court BAD: “Did the trial court correctly grant summary correctly grant summary judgment for the defendant?”judgment for the defendant?”

BETTER: “Is an employer liable BETTER: “Is an employer liable in tort for discharging an at-will in tort for discharging an at-will employee for a reason that employee for a reason that violates public policy?”violates public policy?”

EXAMPLE ISSUE EXAMPLE ISSUE STATEMENTSSTATEMENTS

BEST: “Is the employer liable in BEST: “Is the employer liable in tort for discharging an at-will tort for discharging an at-will employee because of her refusal employee because of her refusal to participate in a public to participate in a public ‘mooning’, a discharge that ‘mooning’, a discharge that contravened the public policy contravened the public policy against indecent exposure against indecent exposure reflected in a criminal statute?”reflected in a criminal statute?”

Holding: The court’s answer to Holding: The court’s answer to the question presented in the the question presented in the

issueissue Simple answer: Yes or NoSimple answer: Yes or No

Detailed answer: Transform issue Detailed answer: Transform issue into a holding in the form of a into a holding in the form of a statementstatementExample: Example: ““Yes. By discharging the employee Yes. By discharging the employee because she refused to participate because she refused to participate in a public ‘mooning,’ the employer in a public ‘mooning,’ the employer violated public policy reflected in a violated public policy reflected in a criminal statute prohibiting criminal statute prohibiting indecent exposure.” indecent exposure.”

ReasoningReasoning

1. Rule and Rationale1. Rule and Rationale

2. Distinguishing Dicta2. Distinguishing Dicta

Dicta: Statements in the opinion Dicta: Statements in the opinion that help explain the court’s that help explain the court’s reasoning but address questions reasoning but address questions not squarely presented in the not squarely presented in the dispute before the courtdispute before the court

EvaluationEvaluation

1. Was the reasoning convincing?1. Was the reasoning convincing?

2. Did the court apply the proper 2. Did the court apply the proper standard of review?standard of review?

3. Did the court properly analyze 3. Did the court properly analyze the statute or constitutional the statute or constitutional provision?provision?

4. Did the court put the proper 4. Did the court put the proper amount of emphasis on equitable amount of emphasis on equitable considerations? considerations?

Martin v. City of SeattleMartin v. City of Seattle, , 105 Wn.App. 1041 (2001)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.