1. CASE BRIEF = RESUME Standardized Information Range of Successful Ways to Present Alter for Different Audiences Rarely the Whole Story

2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3. Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit

4. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About

5. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About In Court Submissions: Quickly Explains Nature of Cases You Discuss In Your Arguments

6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Who Sued Whom?

7. WHO SUED WHOM? Plaintiff Sued Defendant

8. WHO SUED WHOM? Plaintiff Sued Defendant Post Sued Pierson

9. WHO SUED WHOM? Post, a blond 27-year old Dutch-American asthmatic unemployed son of a hero of the Revolutionary War...

10. WHO SUED WHOM? Apartment Landlord Sued Former Tenant … Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Developer... Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender Sued Manufacturer and Seller of Blender...

11. WHO SUED WHOM? Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit...

12. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Who Sued Whom? Under What Theory?

13. UNDER WHAT THEORY? Trespass on the Case (See 1 st Sentence of Case) = Indirect Injury to П’s Property

14. UNDER WHAT THEORY? Trespass on the Case (See 1 st Sentence of Case) = Indirect Injury to П’s Property Compare Trespass = Direct Injury to П’s Property

15. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Who Sued Whom? Under What Theory? For What Remedy?

16. FOR WHAT REMEDY? Unclear From Case

17. FOR WHAT REMEDY? Unclear From Case Dissent: In a court … constituted [of hunters], the skin and carcass of poor reynard would have been properly disposed of...

18. FOR WHAT REMEDY? Unclear From Case Dissent: In a court … constituted [of hunters], the skin and carcass of poor reynard would have been properly disposed of … Normal Remedy For Trespass on the Case is Damages

19. SAMPLE STATEMENT Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit, for trespass on the case, presumably seeking damages.

20. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

21. Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court

22. PROCEDURAL POSTURE Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand Case

23. PROCEDURAL POSTURE Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand Case After Trial Resulted in Verdict for Plaintiff, Appellate Court Granted Defendant’s Petition for [Certiorari] Review

24. FACTS

25. Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis.

26. FACTS Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis. Can’t determine relevance on 1 st read; select or edit after reading whole case.

27. ISSUE/ HOLDING

28. Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake.

29. ISSUE/HOLDING Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently?

30. ISSUE/HOLDING Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently? Substantive Component of Mistake: What Misunderstanding About the Legal Rule Caused the Lower Court to Err

31. “[T]he declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action.”

32. WHAT WAS INSUFFICIENT ABOUT IT?

33. Allegation that plaintiff pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone does not create property rights in the fox.

34. WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

35. The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted

36. ALLEGED MISTAKE The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Allegation That Plaintiff Pursued the Fox Is Insufficient Because Pursuit Alone Does Not Create Property Rights in the Fox.

37. Did the Lower Court Err by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

38. Simple Substantive Issue: Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

39. Simple Substantive Issue: Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox? Cf. p.2: “[W]hat acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild animals[?]”

40. ISSUE  HOLDING Simplest version: Issue is a question. Answer question “yes” or “no.” Repeat issue in statement form (adjust for positive or negative).

41. Did the Lower Court Err by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

42. YES. The Lower Court Erred by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox.

43. HOW MUCH DETAIL GOES IN ISSUE/HOLDING? Try to include factual detail that seems relevant to analysis/outcome Can have different versions that incorporate more or less detail DQ4-5 intended to help you start thinking about how to do this

44. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

45. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox found on a deserted beach, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

46. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Why might it matter that the fox is caught on a deserted beach?

47. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox found on a deserted beach, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

48. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Suppose fox fell into a well before it was shot. Change the result?

49. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Suppose fox fell into a well before it was shot. Change the result? Contemporary accounts suggest this really happened. Why isn’t this discussed in the case?

50. BROAD v. NARROW HOLDINGS NARROW Covers fewer cases Includes more facts More specific BROAD Covers more cases Includes fewer facts More general

51. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox found on a deserted beach, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

52. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in an animal found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. [???]

53. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Why might it matter that the hunted animal is a fox as opposed to some other animal?

54. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in a wild animal found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

55. 5. Holding and Dicta. What are the pros and cons of a court discussing facts not before them?

56. Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a wild animal found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in a wild animal found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must take physical possession, mortally wound it, or capture it in a net or trap. [???]

57. DQ5. Should Courts Discuss Facts Not Before Them? PROS Helps Clarify Reasoning Instructions to Lawyers for Future

58. DQ5. Should Courts Discuss Facts Not Before Them? PROS Helps Clarify Reasoning Instructions to Lawyers for Future CONS No Experience With No Atty Arguments Not Judicial Role

59. DQ5. Should Courts Discuss Facts Not Before Them? PROS Helps Clarify Reasoning Instructions to Lawyers for Future E.g., Pierson: “Not enough” v. “Here’s the Line” CONS No Experience With No Atty Arguments Not Judicial Role E.g., adding death penalty discussion to Pierson

60. 5. Holding and Dicta. How do you know which language in the case is part of the holding?