Chapter 5
Case Law—Research and Briefing
Chapter SUMMARY
A court opinion, often referred to as a case, is the court’s resolution of a legal dispute and the reasons in support of its resolution. When resolving disputes, courts often interpret constitutional or statutory provisions or create law when there is no governing law. The body of law that emerges from court opinions is called the common or case law. It constitutes the largest body of law in the United States, far larger than constitutional, legislative, or other sources of law.
Because you must read court opinions to learn the common law, it is necessary to become familiar with and proficient at reading and analyzing case law. There are several additional reasons, however, for reading opinions. A court opinion:
- Helps you understand and interpret constitutional provisions and statutory law.
- Helps you understand the litigation process.
- Provides insight into legal research and the structure of legal analysis and legal argument.
- Provides a guide to proper legal writing.
Most court opinions are composed of the facts of the case, the procedural history of the case (what happened in the lower court), the questions (issues) that are addressed by the court, the decision or holding of the court, the reasons for the decision reached, and the disposition (the relief granted).
Federal and state court opinions are published in books called reports and reporters and are available through Westlaw and Lexis. In addition, court opinions are often available through official court Web sites and other Internet resources. If the question involves a statute, the search for case law should begin with a review of the annotations following the statute. If the question does not involve a statutory law, the search usually begins with a digest. Computer-assisted research is discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.
A case brief is a written summary of a court opinion that presents, in an organized format, all the essential information of the opinion. A researcher may be assigned the task of briefing a case. A case brief is valuable because it:
- Saves an attorney the time of reading the case. The brief may so sufficiently inform the attorney of the contents of the opinion that he or she will not need to read the case.
- Serves as a valuable learning tool. The process of briefing a case forces the reader to study the case and analyze it piecemeal. A better understanding of the opinion is usually gained as a result of this process.
- Is a reference tool. A case brief serves as a valuable reference guide, allowing the researcher to avoid having to reread an entire case to remember what the court decided and why.
- Is a writing tool. It provides an exercise in assembling a written summary of a court decision.
The first and possibly most important step in briefing a case is to read it carefully and slowly. Reading case law is often a difficult process, especially for the beginner. It becomes easier as more opinions are read.
The elements of a case brief are as follows:
· Citation
· Parties
· Facts
· Prior Proceedings
· Issue
· Holding
· Reasoning
· Disposition
· Comments
Chapters 2 and 3 provide guidelines that are helpful in identifying many of these elements of a case brief.
The importance of case law cannot be overemphasized. The difficulties you encounter in reading and briefing court opinions can be lessened through the use of the guidelines presented in this chapter.
Chapter 5
Chapter OUTLINE
I. Introduction—Chapter Focus
II. Court Opinions—In General
Common law
Case law
Court Opinion
III. Court Opinions—Importance
A. To Learn the Common Law
B. To Interpret Constitutional or Statutory Law
C. To Understand the Litigation Process
D. To Gain Insight into Legal Analysis
E. To Develop Legal Writing Skills
IV. Court Opinions—Elements
A. In General
1. The facts
2. The procedural history
3. The issue or issues
4. The rule of law
5. The application of the rule of law to the facts
6. The reason or reasons supporting the court’s application of the rule of law
7. The relief granted or denied
B. Elements of a Reported Case
1. Citation
2. Caption
3. Syllabus
4. Headnotes
5. Key numbers
6. Attorneys
7. Judge
8. Body of the opinion
a. Facts
b. Prior proceedings
c. Issue or issues
d. Rule of law
e. Holding
f. Reasoning
g. Disposition/relief granted
(1). Affirm
(2). Reverse and remand
(3). Affirm the trial court on some of the issues and reverse the trial court on other issues
h. Concurring opinion
i. Dissenting opinion
V. Court Opinions—Researching—The process of finding a court opinion that answers a question being researched
A. Publication of Court Opinions
1. In general
2. Forms of publication
a. Slip opinion
b. Advance sheets
c. Reporter—examples
3. National reporter system—most reporter volumes include:
· Table of cases
· Table of statutes
· Table of words and phrases
· Key number digest
· Case syllabus (a synopsis case summary), headnotes, and key numbers
4. Publication of federal court decisions
a. U.S. Supreme Court
(1). Supreme Court Reporter
(2). United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition
(3). Loose-leaf services and newspapers
(4). Computer and Internet resources
b. U.S. courts of appeal
c. U.S. district courts
d. Other West’s federal reporters
(1). Federal Rules Decisions
(2). West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
(3). United States Claims Court Reporter
(4). West’s Military Justice Reporter
(5). West’s Veterans Appeals Reporter
5. Publication of state court decisions
- Regional reporters—Pacific Reporter, North Western Reporter, South Western Reporter, North Eastern Reporter, Atlantic Reporter, South Eastern Reporter, and Southern Reporter—Public domain citation (medium neutral citations or vender neutral citations)
- Computer and Internet resources
B. Researching Court Opinions—Locating Case Law
1. Statutory annotations
2. Digest
3. Computer-aided
4. Other case law research sources
5. Shepard’s Citations and updating
VI. Court Opinion—Briefing (Case Brief)
A. Introduction
B. Importance of Briefing
1. Analysis/learning
2. Research/reference
3. Writing
C. How to Read a Case—Carefully—Often Several Times—Reasons
D. Case Brief—Elements
1. Citation
2. Parties
3. Facts
4. Prior proceedings/procedural history—prior proceedings should include
a. The party initiating the proceeding and the cause of action
b. The court before which the proceeding was brought
c. The result of the proceeding
d. The party appealing and what is being appealed
5. Issue or issues
6. Holding
7. Reasoning—Includes rule of law, application of this rule to the facts of the case
8. Disposition
9. Comments
E. Case Brief—Updating
VII. Key Points Checklist—Locating, Reading, and Briefing Court Opinion
VIII. Application
A. Chapter 1 Hypothetical, Reins v. Stewart
B. Chapter 2 Hypothetical, United States v. Canter
C. Brief of Rael v. Cadena—Discuss
D. Brief of Sterling Computer Systems of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Pipe Bending Company—Discuss
IX. Review Internet Resources
X. Review Case Law Citation
A. Federal Courts
1. U.S. Supreme Court
2. U.S. Court of Appeals
3. U.S. District Court
B. State Courts
Chapter 5
WEB ASSIGNMENTS
ASSIGNMENT 1
The client is charged with the crime of bigamy in the state of California. Is wrongful intent an element of the crime? Using a digest, identify a 1995 California case that answers this question.
ASSIGNMENT 2
The defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit murder under 18 U.S.C. 1117. The defendant did not know that the victim was a federal officer. Does the statute require that the defendant know the identity of the victim? Give the citation of the second circuit case that addresses this question.
ASSIGNMENT 3
The supervising attorney is working on a contract case. The assignment is to locate a case that holds that damages need not be calculated with mathematical certainty and the method used to compute damages need not be more than an approximation. Give the citation of a 2000 New Hampshire case that addresses this matter.
ASSIGNMENT 4
The supervising attorney is working on a corporation case. She recalls that there is a case on point from the seventh circuit. She remembers that the plaintiff’s name was Akerman and the defendant’s name was either Orix, Ornx, or Orynx Communication. Locate the case.
ASSIGNMENT 5
Read Hershley v. Brown, presented later. Following the format presented in Chapter 5, brief the strict liability for unsuccessful sterilization and the two-year statute of limitations issues.
ASSIGNMENT 6
Read State v. Wong, presented later. Following the format presented in Chapter 5, brief the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the attorney’s failure to argue the insanity defense.
ASSIGNMENT 7
Read Melia v. Dillon Companies, Inc., presented later, and brief the false imprisonment issue.
ASSIGNMENT 5 CASE
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.
Shelley HERSHLEY and Roy Hershley, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
Merlin D. BROWN, Defendant/Respondent.
655 S.W. 2d 671 (Mo.App. 1983)
TURNAGE, Judge.
Shelley and Roy Hershley filed an action against Dr. Merlin Brown and Richard Wolfe Medical Instruments. The trial court sustained the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim on grounds that Missouri does not recognize actions for wrongful conception, and that the action was barred by limitations. The Hershleys appealed, claiming that because this case involved a foreign object, it was not time barred, that the statute of limitations was tolled because of Dr. Brown's fraudulent concealment, and that Missouri recognizes wrongful conception [FN1] claims. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FN1. This term is synonomous with the term wrongful pregnancy.
The circumstances which gave rise to this case began in 1977, when the petition alleges *674 that Shelley Hershley and her husband, Roy Hershley, consulted with Dr. Merlin Brown regarding the possibility of Mrs. Hershley's undergoing a tubal ligation to become sterile. Dr. Brown allegedly informed the Hershleys that he would perform a bilateral tubal ligation by burning, cauterizing, or otherwise removing portions of Mrs. Hershley's fallopian tubes.
The petition alleges that Dr. Brown performed a surgical sterilization procedure on Mrs. Hershley on December 27, 1977, and that in October of 1980, Mrs. Hershley conceived a child by her husband. The child came to term in July of 1981. [FN2] The petition further alleges that not until after Mrs. Hershley had conceived did she and her husband become aware of the fact that rather than burning, cauterizing, or otherwise removing portions of Mrs. Hershley's tubes, Dr. Brown had performed the sterilization procedure by inserting a tubal ring instrument manufactured and distributed by Richard Wolfe Medical Instruments.
FN2. There is no indication in the record that this child was not normal and healthy.
In October of 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Hershley filed suit against Dr. Brown and Richard Wolfe Medical Instruments. Their petition contained counts by both Mr. and Mrs. Hershley alleging strict liability, negligent installation of a foreign object, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of a battery. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitation set forth in § 516. 105 RSMo 1978. [FN3] The trial court granted these motions.
FN3. All sectional references are to Missouri's Revised Statutes, 1978.
[1] The scope of review in appeals from the granting of a motion to dismiss a petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is well settled. The petition is to be construed favorably to the plaintiffs, giving them the benefit of every reasonable and fair intendment in view of the facts alleged. Ingalls v. Neufeld, 487 S.W.2d 52, 54[4] (Mo.App.1972). If the facts pleaded and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, viewed most favorably from the plaintiff's point of view, show any ground for relief, the plaintiff's petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Burckhardt v. General American Life Insurance Company, 534 S.W.2d 57, 63[5] (Mo.App.1975).
******
The first count of the petition alleges that both Richard Wolfe Medical Instruments and Dr. Brown should be held strictly liable for the unsuccessful sterilization of Mrs. Hershley, because the Wolfe ring was defective. At the oral argument of this appeal, the Hershley's counsel announced that they were dismissing their appeal on their claim against Richard Wolfe Medical Instruments. Thus, the appeal from the dismissal of this count hinges on the applicability of the strict liability doctrine to physicians.
While no Missouri case has addressed this issue, leading cases from other jurisdictions have held that physicians may not be held liable under this theory. One such case is Hoven v. Kelble, 79 Wis.2d 444, 256 N.W.2d 379 (1977). There, the court ruled that a physician was not liable for injuries suffered by a patient in the course of a lung biopsy.
[3] One theory advanced by the plaintiff was that the physician was strictly liable for allegedly defective medical services rendered. Noting that it had found no decision of any court applying the strict liability doctrine to the rendition of professional medical services, the Hoven court affirmed *675 the trial court's sustaining of demurrers to the strict liability cause of action, offering the following support for its decision:
Medical services are an absolute necessity to society, and they must be readily available to the people. It is said that strict liability will inevitably increase the cost for medical services, which might make them beyond the means of many consumers, and that imposition of strict liability might hamper progress in developing new medicines and medical techniques. 256 N.W.2d at 391.
Another leading case which discusses the applicability of the strict liability doctrine to physicians in Carmichael v. Reitz, 17 Cal.App.3d 958, 95 Cal.Rptr. 381 (1971), which held that the treating physician was not liable under a theory of strict liability in tort for pulmonary embolisms and thrombophlebitis allegedly suffered by the plaintiff as the result of a drug which the physician prescribed. The Carmichael court stated that if an injury results but if no negligence or fault is shown, liability without fault may not be imposed to find the medical doctor liable.
This court is persuaded by the doctrines expressed in Hoven and Carmichael, and refuses to apply the strict liability doctrine to physicians. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed the first count of Mrs. Hershley's petition, which alleged a cause of action against Dr. Brown on a theory of strict liability.