Legal Writing and Analysis in a Nutshell

Fifth Edition Bahrych

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/legal-writing-and-analysis-in-a-nutshell-fifth-edition-ba
hrych/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Sports Law in a Nutshell Fifth Edition Champion

https://textbookfull.com/product/sports-law-in-a-nutshell-fifth-
edition-champion/

Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing William H. Putman

https://textbookfull.com/product/legal-research-analysis-and-
writing-william-h-putman/

Writing and Designing Manuals and Warnings Fifth

Edition Patricia A. Robinson (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/writing-and-designing-manuals-
and-warnings-fifth-edition-patricia-a-robinson-author/

International Taxation in a Nutshell Mindy Herzfeld

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-taxation-in-a-
nutshell-mindy-herzfeld/
Law School Success in a Nutshell Burkhart

https://textbookfull.com/product/law-school-success-in-a-
nutshell-burkhart/

Insurance Distribution Directive: A Legal Analysis

Pierpaolo Marano

https://textbookfull.com/product/insurance-distribution-
directive-a-legal-analysis-pierpaolo-marano/

C in a Nutshell Second Edition Peter Prinz And Tony

Crawford

https://textbookfull.com/product/c-in-a-nutshell-second-edition-
peter-prinz-and-tony-crawford/

Model Selection and Error Estimation in a Nutshell Luca

Oneto

https://textbookfull.com/product/model-selection-and-error-
estimation-in-a-nutshell-luca-oneto/

Basic Legal Writing for Paralegals Hope Viner Samborn

https://textbookfull.com/product/basic-legal-writing-for-
paralegals-hope-viner-samborn/
WEST ACADEMIC PUBLISHING’S LAW
SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARD
—————
JESSE H. CHOPER
Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley

JOSHUA DRESSLER
Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in Law
Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University

YALE KAMISAR
Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego
Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan

MARY KAY KANE

Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus,
University of California, Hastings College of the Law

LARRY D. KRAMER
President, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

JONATHAN R. MACEY
Professor of Law, Yale Law School

ARTHUR R. MILLER
University Professor, New York University
Formerly Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard University

GRANT S. NELSON
Professor of Law, Pepperdine University
Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles

A. BENJAMIN SPENCER
Earle K. Shawe Professor of Law,
University of Virginia School of Law

JAMES J. WHITE
Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law Emeritus,
University of Michigan
LEGAL WRITING AND
ANALYSIS
IN A NUTSHELL®
FIFTH EDITION

LYNN BAHRYCH, J.D., Ph.D.

Attorney at Law

JEANNE MERINO
Lecturer in Residence
Director, First-Year Legal Research
and Writing
Stanford Law School

BETH McLELLAN
Lecturer in Residence
Stanford Law School
The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this
publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other
expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other
professional.
Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell and the Nutshell Logo are trademarks registered in the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
COPYRIGHT © 1982, 1996 WEST PUBLISHING CO.
© West, a Thomson business, 2003
© 2009 Thomson Reuters
© 2017 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
444 Cedar Street, Suite 700
St. Paul, MN 55101
1-877-888-1330
West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West
Publishing Corporation, used under license.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-63460-281-5
 In memory of Professor Marjorie D. Rombauer,
Emerita, Founder of the field of Legal Writing
Education and
For our families,
Max Thomas Bahrych, Glee C. Bahrych, and
Shannon Glee Squires;
Marilyn Merino and Fred Merino and Russ, Rico,
Rosie and Annie;
and Fred, María, Dan, Will and Maggie Alvarez,
and Elinore Kaufman
 PREFACE
—————
The first edition of this Nutshell reflected the combined efforts
of the late Professor of Law Marjorie D. Rombauer, Emerita, and
Legal Writing Associate Lynn Bahrych Squires, Ph.D., now Lynn
Bahrych, attorney at law. Published in l982, the first edition grew
out of their collaborative efforts teaching legal writing and
research at the University of Washington School of Law from l978
until l982.
Professor Marjorie Rombauer was a celebrated founder of the
field of Legal Writing in the law school curriculum. She combined
the specialized discipline of legal writing with legal research and
analysis to create a new approach to teaching basic legal skills to
first-year law students. Her pioneering work and popular legal
textbooks have made her an icon in the fields of legal research,
analysis, and writing. We have followed in her footsteps, building
on her legacy to our profession, by adding legal analysis to this
edition of the Nutshell.
In addition to Lynn Bahrych, the authors of the current edition
are Jeanne Merino and Beth McLellan, legal writing instructors
at Stanford Law School. Jeanne Merino is Lecturer in Residence
and Director of the First-Year Legal Research and Writing
Program. Beth McLellan is Lecturer in Residence. Jeanne and
Beth are indebted to all former and current colleagues who have
taught Legal Research and Writing and Federal Litigation at
Stanford. Each of them so generously shared ideas about legal
writing that their insights have become our own. Many thanks
also to the participants of the 2015 West Coast Rhetoric
workshop hosted by UNLV.
This new edition of Legal Writing and Analysis in a Nutshell
offers law students and lawyers a practical step-by-step method
of analyzing and writing clearly, precisely, and effectively about
the law. The chapters that follow will guide the legal writer,
whether a first-year law student or a practicing attorney, to a
reliable set of practices that will insure successful written
communication.
Lynn Bahrych, J.D., Ph.D.
Jeanne Merino, J.D.
Beth McLellan, J.D.
Stanford, California
October 2016
 INTRODUCTION
—————
Lawyers are professional writers. Writing is an essential part of
a practicing attorney’s daily work. Rather than decreasing the
need for writing, the internet and other data transmission
innovations have dramatically increased the flow of written
communication. New technologies will continue to change how we
write, but the law will always require the certainty of the written
word.
Today, lawyers must not only write more often, but also more
quickly. This new Nutshell offers a method of writing efficiently,
without losing clarity, precision, and effectiveness. Our step-by-
step method is illustrated in the flow chart in Chapter One. This
method is designed to clarify each step you take and to help you
make deliberate choices. Each step will be explained in one or
more chapters.
This new edition of Legal Writing and Analysis in a Nutshell
includes legal analysis for the first time. Times have changed
since the first edition of Legal Writing in a Nutshell was
published in 1982. We now use email for most communication, as
well as texts for informal messaging. The process of writing has
changed in response to this new medium. As Marshall McLuhan
wrote in 1964, “the medium is the message. This is merely to say
that the personal and social consequences of any medium—that is
of any extension of ourselves—result from the new scale that is
introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by
any new technology.” Marshall McCluhan, Understanding Media:
The Extensions of Man 1 (1964). Analysis always comes first—
that has not changed—but the compact and fast-moving forms of
written communication that deliver analysis today are even more
tightly bound to the content of their message than in 1964 or
1982.
 The Fifth Edition offers legal writers a practical step-by-step
method of both analyzing and writing clearly, precisely, and
effectively about the law. Although, as we have noted, the means
of written communication continually change, the basic elements
of effective legal writing have not changed. Whether the legal
writer is crafting an email, a letter to a client, or a brief for a trial
court, the same fundamental principles apply. Legal writing
requires attention to accuracy, attention to the reader’s needs and
expectations, and attention to the craft of writing precisely,
concisely, and effectively.
The chapters that follow will guide the legal writer to a reliable
set of practices that will insure successful written communication
about the law. Chapters One to Ten explain the traditional
elements of written composition, from organization of a legal
document to individual word choices. The most common forms of
legal writing, the research memorandum, client letter, and
persuasive brief, are discussed in Chapters Six and Seven.
Guidelines for writing emails are included in Chapter Six. Tips
for editing and polishing your documents are given in Chapter
Ten. You will find sample documents in Appendix A, including a
case brief, a research memorandum, and a brief for a trial court.
Appendix B provides you with a simple method of analyzing and
improving your personal writing style. For readers wishing to
improve their understanding of the structure of the English
language, diagramming of sentences is also included in Appendix
B. A glossary of words commonly misused in legal writing is
provided in Appendix C. Finally, Appendix D recommends
additional sources that we especially value.
 OUTLINE
—————
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1. Basic Steps to Legal Writing and Analysis 1
§ 1.1 Introduction
§ 1.2 First Step: Identify Your Goal
§ 1.3 Second Step: Gather Facts and Analyze
Law
§ 1.4 Third Step: Draft Preliminary Outline
§ 1.5 Fourth Step: Draft Detailed Outline
§ 1.6 Fifth Step: Write First Draft
§ 1.7 Sixth Step: Let Your Draft Rest, Then
Revise
§ 1.8 Seventh Step: Check Citations, Quotations, and Format
Chapter 2. Legal Analysis 13
§ 2.1 Introduction
§ 2.2 Hierarchy of Authorities and Changing
Law
A. Stare Decisis
B. Court Systems and Hierarchy of Authorities
C. State and Federal Court Systems
1. Mandatory Authority
2. Persuasive Authority
§ 2.3 Reading and Understanding Legal
Authorities
A. Understanding Statutes
1. Identify What the Statute
Does
2. Read the Statute in Context
3. Use Interpretive Aids to
Construe the Statute
 a. Where to Find the “Plain Meaning” of a Statute
b. Where to Find the Legislature’s Intent
c. Canons of Construction
B. Understanding Cases
C. How to Read a Case
1. Statement of Facts
2. Procedural Posture and
Standards of Review
3. Legal Test
a. Identify the Legal Test That the Court Uses to
Decide the Case
b. Typical Structure of Legal Tests
4. The Holding
5. Dicta
D. Analyzing Multiple Authorities
1. Reason in “Layers”
2. Identify Core Substantive Rule
and Ancillary Rules
§ 2.4 Applying Legal Rules to a Factual
Situation
§ 2.5 Reaching a Conclusion
Chapter 3. Large-Scale Organization 51
§ 3.1 Introduction
§ 3.2 Organizing Advisory and Advocacy
Writing
§ 3.3 Organizing a Discussion or Argument
Section
A. Use an Effective Structure
B. Choose a Logical Order
1. Legal Rules or Tests
2. Interdependent Issues
3. Chronological Order
C. Other Considerations
§ 3.4 Organizing Individual Issues and
Sub-Issues
§ 3.5 Outlining
Chapter 4. Small-Scale Organization 65
§ 4.1 Introduction
§ 4.2 Designing Paragraphs
A. Why to Paragraph
B. Unify Each Paragraph
C. Begin with a Topic or Thesis
Sentence
D. Control Paragraph Length
E. Take Advantage of Location
§ 4.3 Designing Paragraph Blocks
A. Arrange Paragraph Blocks in Meaningful Patterns
B. Use Expected Patterns Like CRAC
§ 4.4 Using Transitions
A. Why to Transition
B. Transitional Paragraphs
C. Transitional Sentences
D. Substantive Transitions Between Sentences
E. Transitional Words
1. Choose Precise Transitional
Words
2. Prefer Substantive Transitional Words
3. Vary Transitional Words
§ 4.5 More About Outlining
Chapter 5. Language in the Legal Setting 83
§ 5.1 Introduction
§ 5.2 Principles for Making Word Choices
A. Use Words in Their Literal Sense
B. Omit Archaic Legalisms
C. Use the Same Word to Refer to the
Same Thing; Use Different Words to Refer to Different
Things
D. Use Simple, Familiar Words
E. Use Concrete Rather than Abstract Words
 F. Use Words That Create an
Appropriate Tone
G. Avoid Equivocations
H. Use Unqualified Nouns, Adjectives,
and Verbs
I. Use Few Literary Devices
J. Avoid Jargon from Other Fields
§ 5.3 A Few Brief Words: Redundancy in Legal Writing
Chapter 6. Advisory Writing 99
§ 6.1 Introduction
§ 6.2 Legal Memoranda
A. Purposes of Legal Memoranda
B. Format
C. Heading
D. Introduction
E. Questions Presented
1. Draft the Ultimate Question
2. Organize and Format Specific Questions
3. Use Subquestions Effectively
4. Revise and Edit
F. Brief Answers
G. Statement of Facts
1. Use Effective Style
2. Organize for Clarity
3. Revise and Edit
H. Discussion
1. Write Objectively
2. Write with Your Reader in
Mind
3. Organize Your Analysis
a. Large-Scale
b. Small-Scale
4. Explain the Pertinent Law
5. Include Complete Arguments
and Counter-Arguments
 6. Use Conservative Style and
Tone
7. Use Quotations Selectively
I. Conclusion
§ 6.3 Client Letters
§ 6.4 Email
A. Perils and Etiquette of
Communicating Via Email and
Other Electronic Media
B. Email Etiquette: Ten Simple
Rules
§ 6.5 Revising, Editing, and Proofreading
Chapter 7. Advocacy Writing 133
§ 7.1 Introduction
§ 7.2 Legal Briefs
A. Purpose of a Legal Brief
B. Preparation for Writing
1. Know the Rules
2. Select Your Arguments
3. Consider Your Theory of the
Case
C. Components of a Legal Brief
1. Table of Contents and Point Headings
a. Example of Table of
Contents
b. Formatting Point
Headings
c. Drafting Point Headings
d. Example of Point Headings from Opposing Briefs
2. Table of Authorities
3. Questions Presented and Introductions
a. Questions Presented
b. Introductions
c. Summary of Argument
4. The Statement of the Facts
 5. The Argument
a. General Writing Goals
b. Organizing the Argument Section of Your Brief
c. Crafting a Persuasive
Rule
d. Applying the Law to the
Facts of Your Case
e. Counter-Argument
6. The Conclusion
§ 7.3 Writing to Persuade
A. Writing Style
B. Controlling Tone
C. Consider the Purpose of Your
Document and Your Audience
D. Using Rhetorical Devices for
Persuasion
1. Achieving Emphasis with
Sentence Structures
2. Achieving Emphasis with Paragraphing
3. Achieving Emphasis with
Language
4. Using Classical Devices for Persuasion
5. Avoiding Ineffective
Emphasis
§ 7.4 Writing Advocacy Letters
Chapter 8. Sentence Design 179
§ 8.1 Introduction
§ 8.2 Principles of Sentence Construction
A. Begin Sentences with the Subject or with Other
Significant Words or
Phrases
1. Open a Sentence with Its
Subject
2. Place Transitional Words Near
the Subject
 3. Do Not Routinely Open
Sentences with Full Citations
B. Keep Subject and Verb Close
Together
C. Use Subject-Verb-Object Pattern
D. Keep Related Parts of the Sentence Together
1. Keep Modifiers Next to the
Words They Modify
2. Avoid Misplaced Modifiers at
the Beginning of a Sentence
3. Avoid Misplaced Modifiers in
the Middle of a Sentence
4. Avoid Split Infinitives When Possible
5. Avoid Ambiguous Modifiers at
the End of a Sentence
E. End Sentences Swiftly and
Effectively
1. Put Significant Words or
Phrases in the Final Position
2. Avoid Prepositional Phrases in
the Final Position
§ 8.3 Sentence Revision
A. A Simple Method for Revising Troublesome Sentences
1. First, Lift Main Subject, Verb,
and Object from the Sentence
2. Second, Remove Imprecise
Subject-Verb Combinations
3. Third, Revise for Subject-Verb-Object Order
B. Simple Techniques for Shortening Sentences
1. Deconstruct Long Sentences
2. Eliminate Unnecessary Words
3. Convert Long Compound
Sentences to Shorter
Sentences
4. Transfer Internal Clauses or Parenthetical Expressions
to Another Sentence
§ 8.4 Techniques to Enhance Readability
A. Use Short and Medium-Length Sentences
B. Make One Point Per Sentence
C. When Possible, Make Sentences Affirmative, Not
Negative
D. Use Parallelism and Balance in Sentence Structures
E. Provide Extra Structural Clues
1. Include Essential “That”
2. Repeat Some Structural Words
to Improve Readability
§ 8.5 Useful Sentence Patterns for Legal
Writing
A. Basic Sentence Types
B. Useful Patterns: “If . . . Then”
C. Useful Patterns: Stating a Rule and Exception
D. Useful Patterns: Reversal of Direct Object and
Prepositional Phrases
E. Useful Patterns: Periodic
Sentence
§ 8.6 Principles for Avoiding Ambiguous or Confusing Sentences
A. Avoid the “Not . . . Because” Sentence Pattern
B. Avoid Ambiguous Prepositional
Phrases
1. Introduction
2. Place Prepositional Phrases
Next to What They Modify
3. Avoid Strings of Prepositional Phrases
4. Beware of Adjacent
Prepositional Phrases
5. Beware of “With” and “Without” Phrases in Final
Position
C. Avoid Sentences Beginning with Relative Pronouns
Chapter 9. Punctuation and Grammar 219
§ 9.1 Introduction
§ 9.2 Punctuation
A. Introduction
B. Use of the Comma
1. Use a Compound Sentence
Comma for Clarity
2. Do Not Use a Comma with Compound Subjects, Verbs,
and Objects
3. Use Two Commas to Set Off Interruptions
4. Use Commas for Nonrestrictive Phrases or Clauses
5. Use a Comma with “Which” but
Not with “That”
6. Do Not Use a Comma to
Separate a Long or Compound Subject from Its Verb
7. Use an Introductory Comma to
Set Off Introductory Words, Phrases, or Clauses
8. Use a Series Comma
9. Use a Contrasting Comma for Emphasis
10. Use a Comma to Separate Dependent from
Independent Clauses
11. Do Not Use a Comma Before “Because”
12. Use a Comma to Separate Some Adjectives
13. Use a Comma After
Parenthetical Material
14. Place a Comma Inside
Quotation Marks
15. Use Commas with Numbers
C. Use of the Semicolon
1. Use a Semicolon to Separate
Two Sentences
2. Use a Semicolon to Substitute
for the Comma in a Complex
Series
3. Place a Semicolon Outside Quotation Marks
D. Use of the Colon
1. Use a Colon to Introduce a List
or an Enumeration
 2. Use a Colon to Introduce an Example, Illustration, or
Elaboration
3. Use a Colon to Introduce Quotations or Formal
Statements
4. Use a Colon to Emphasize What Follows
5. Place a Colon Outside Quotation Marks
E. Use of Parentheses
1. Use Parentheses to Set Off Potentially Ambiguous
Phrases
2. Use Parentheses to Enclose Interruptions
3. Use Correct Punctuation with Parentheses
4. Use Parentheses to Enclose Numbers and Letters
Marking Divisions in the Main Text
F. Use of the Hyphen
G. Use of a Dash
1. Use the Dash Sparingly
2. Use a Dash to Indicate a Break, Shift, or Interruption
3. Use a Dash to Expand an
Idea
H. Use of the Slash or Virgule
I. Use of Quotation Marks
J. Use of the Apostrophe
1. Use an Apostrophe to Reflect Possession
2. Use “Its” When You Need the Possessive Form of “It”
3. Use an Apostrophe to Indicate Omission of Letters
4. Use an Apostrophe for Certain Plurals
5. Use “ ’S” with Gerunds but Not
with Participles
K. Use of the Exclamation Point
L. Use of Brackets
M. Use of Ellipsis Points
N. Punctuation of Citations
O. Use of Italics
P. Use of Numerals and Section
Symbols
 Q. Punctuation of Structured
Enumeration
§ 9.3 Grammar
A. Subject-Verb Agreement
1. Beware of Phrases Between
Subject and Verb
2. Beware of Lengthy Subject
Phrases or Clauses
3. Use a Plural Verb with Most Compound Subjects
4. Use Singular Verbs with Most Indefinite Pronouns and
Collective Nouns
5. Make Forms of “To Be” and
Linking Verbs Agree with the Subject
B. Use of “Who” and “Whom”
C. Use of Personal Pronouns
D. Use of Reflexive Pronouns
E. Which to Use: “Who,” “Which,” or
“That”
F. Pronoun Reference
1. Avoid Pronoun Confusion by
Using Proper Names or by Repeating the Antecedent
2. Avoid the Indefinite Use of
“It”
G. Use of Sex-Linked Pronouns
H. Use of Subjunctive Mood
§ 9.4 Postscript to Punctuation and
Grammar
Chapter 10. Final Steps: Editing, Proofreading,
Formatting Citations and Quotations 261
§ 10.1 Introduction
§ 10.2 Editing and Proofreading
A. Refine Your Editing Process
B. Editing and Proofreading Tips
§ 10.3 Formatting Citations and Quotations
A. Remember Why We Cite
 B. Make Citations Part of Your Writing Process
C. Format Citations Correctly
D. Use Quotations Correctly
1. Exception to the Golden Rule
2. Quoting Directly
3. Paraphrasing
4. Block Quotations
5. Ideas from Secondary Sources
§ 10.4 A Note About Writing Samples
§ 10.5 Conclusion
Appendix A. Sample Legal Materials and Documents 283
I. Authors’ Note
II. Writing a Formal Case Brief
III. Appellate Opinion: Wilson v.
Houston Funeral Home
IV. Sample Case Brief: Wilson v. Houston
Funeral Home
V. Outline Format for Research
Memorandum’s Discussion Section
VI. Sample Detailed Memorandum Outline, Abrams v. Scott
VII. Sample Research Memorandum, Abrams
v. Scott
VIII. Sample Trial Brief, Abrams v. Scott
Appendix B. Individual Writing Analysis
and Microgrammar 323
I. Individual Writing Analysis
II. Writing Analysis Worksheet
III. A Microgrammar
Appendix C. Glossary of Words Commonly Misused in
Legal Writing 349
I. Common Transitional Words and
Phrases
Appendix D. Selected Sources 383
Index
LEGAL WRITING AND
ANALYSIS
IN A NUTSHELL®
FIFTH EDITION
 1

CHAPTER 1
BASIC STEPS TO LEGAL
WRITING AND ANALYSIS
§ 1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes our step-by-step method of legal writing
and analysis, as illustrated in the flow chart below. The chart
describes the process of legal problem solving for the legal writer.
The individual steps are more fully explained in the chapters to
follow.
§ 1.2 FIRST STEP: IDENTIFY YOUR GOAL
Your first task is to identify your goal. This seems easy and self-
evident, but it is surprising how often we begin a writing project
with only a vague idea of our goal. Write down your goal or goals.
This first simple step will give you clarity and focus, providing a
touchstone throughout the writing and analysis process. Are you
communicating legal advice to a client? Are you summarizing
current legal authorities for an attorney? Are you crafting a
settlement agreement? Are you persuading a court to do
something specific? Know precisely what your goal is before you
begin.
Part of identifying your goal is to identify your audience. Who
will be reading what you write? Anything written to address a
conflict may eventually be read by a judge, regardless of the
initial audience. Identify all possible readers. Although your
writing may be protected by the

attorney-client privilege, your client may share it with others,

raising the possibility that an opposing party may eventually
read it.
Estimate how much time your audience will have to read what
you write. This may take some investigation, but will save you
time if, as is usually the case, your intended audience will be
reading what you write quickly and possibly only once. If your
document is likely to be read as email, on a small screen or hand-
held electronic device, then your writing must be more like a
telegram than a Victorian novel. Keep your busy reader in mind
as you write. Also keep in mind precisely what you want your
reader to do as a result of your writing.
After identifying your goal and your audience, select the type of
document that will serve you best. This may be obvious, for
example, if you are writing an appellate brief, but sometimes you
have choices. Will your goal be served best by an opinion letter
that contains a summary of current law? Or by an inquiry to
opposing counsel to determine where common ground may be?
When you know your goal, your audience, and the type of
document you will use, identify the deadline or set one for
yourself. Next, work backwards from your deadline to draft a
timeline for completing your document. Use the steps in the flow
chart to construct your timeline.

§ 1.3 SECOND STEP: GATHER FACTS AND ANALYZE

LAW
Make a list of the sources of information that you will use. This
could include case files given to you, interviews with clients,
witnesses, or experts, and legal research. Basically, what facts
and law do you need to gather? Determine the order in which you
will gather this information. Rarely do we have time to research
everything relevant, so the next task is to prioritize sources of
information. Starting with the most important first, gather as
much information as you find useful within your timeline
constraints. Knowing when to stop will be difficult at first, but
will become easier with experience. Your goal and your timeline
will give you essential guide posts as you gather information.
For excellent guidance on legal research, see Morris L. Cohen &
Kent C. Olson, Legal Research in a Nutshell (West Academic,
12th ed. 2016).
After you have assembled the facts you need and identified the
relevant laws, the next step is to organize the facts into a
coherent chronology or story and synthesize the legal authorities.
Organizing the facts into a story or objective set of circumstances
must come first. Only when you know what has happened will
you know which laws apply. You may have multiple sources of
law. To synthesize them requires clear understanding of each
source, whether case law, statutes, rules, or secondary sources,
such as legal treatises. Chapter Two explains how to analyze each
of the primary sources of law.

With the story or fact pattern clearly outlined, apply the law as
you have synthesized it. Knowing how the law applies to the facts
in the most relevant or governing cases you have found, compare
your facts to those and to any other comparable cases. Identify
significant differences as well as significant similarities. The
differences may lead you to further research. The differences will
also help you to predict opposing arguments. The similarities will
provide a foundation for your legal arguments and ultimately for
your conclusion.
The application of the law as you have synthesized it to the
facts as you have assembled them will reveal the possible
outcomes. There is never just one possible outcome. At this stage,
you will need to identify the most likely outcomes, without
ignoring any significant facts or relevant law. Chapter Two, Legal
Analysis, discusses this step in more detail.
 Depending on the possible outcomes, you may need to do further
legal research or fact gathering. Fact gathering and legal
research is often an iterative process. The more you understand,
the more you may need to know.
When you have the facts in order and the law analyzed, the next
step is a rough outline or synthesis chart. The details of this are
discussed in Chapter Two, Legal Analysis, and Chapter Three,
Large-Scale Organization.

§ 1.4 THIRD STEP: DRAFT PRELIMINARY OUTLINE

After you have completed any additional legal research,
analysis, and fact gathering, you will be ready to draft a
preliminary outline. Your outline will begin with a list of
conclusions or possible outcomes. Depending on your assignment,
it may also begin with a list of issues. Either way, you should list
them in the order of their importance. Check to make sure that
you do not have the same or similar subjects in different places.
Check the list to ensure that related subjects are discussed as
closely together as possible, as well as in the order of their
importance. Chapter Three, Large-Scale Organization, provides
details about this stage of outlining.
Conclusions normally come first because most types of legal
writing provide answers to legal questions. Most readers want to
know the answers immediately. This includes clients reading
opinion letters and judges reading briefs. Therefore, answers
should usually be given first, before supporting analysis or
discussion.
The process of outlining may reveal holes in your legal analysis
or missing facts. The iterative process of adding further research
and investigating facts may continue until you are finished with
the document. Outlining and drafting force us to think more
precisely and logically, which often results in new insights
requiring further research. This process is discussed in detail in
Chapter Three,

Large-Scale Organization; Chapter Six, Advisory Writing; and

Chapter Seven, Advocacy Writing.
§ 1.5 FOURTH STEP: DRAFT DETAILED OUTLINE
The writing process becomes easier at this stage. You will have
completed most of the research and analysis, you will know what
your conclusions are, and you will have a clear idea of the most
likely outcomes. The preliminary outline, which reflects the large-
scale organization of your subject, is ready to be refined.
Your conclusions are based on a logical arrangement of facts
which have been analyzed using relevant law. After stating your
conclusions, the next part of your outline is normally a factual
statement or summary of facts. Each relevant law will then be
applied in either logical order or the order of importance to these
facts.
Each relevant legal issue will have its own paragraph or set of
paragraphs. Chapter Four, Small-scale Organization, provides
guidance for structuring and organizing individual paragraphs.
In the course of outlining at a smaller scale, you may discover
holes in your analysis or fact pattern. Again, this process is
iterative. You will discover what you know and do not know in
the process of outlining at this smaller scale.

§ 1.6 FIFTH STEP: WRITE FIRST DRAFT

With your detailed outline, you are ready to begin writing your
first draft. If this seems daunting, remember that this is merely
the first draft. Just write it. Don’t worry about getting everything
perfect at this stage. Just start writing complete sentences, or
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 1 year 1.5 per cent.
2–5 5.4 per cent.
6–10 6.6 per cent.
11–15 7.2 per cent.
16–20 11.4 per cent.
21–30 22.2 per cent.
31–40 19.3 per cent.
41–50 12.6 per cent.
51–60 7.7 per cent.
61–70 3.6 per cent.
71–80 2.0 per cent.
Above 80 0.5 per cent.

Leubuscher recorded that in Jena the proportion of cases in the

individual age classes did not correspond with the figures reported
from other localities. Children, and especially very young children,
suffered relatively less than adults.
The following statistics of the 1889–90 incidence of influenza
among school children in Cologne were collected by Lent:

Attendance. Ill of influenza.

Class I–13 to 14 years of age 3,002 1,015 33.8 per cent.
Class II–11 to 12 years of age 5,737 1,835 31.9 per cent.
Class III–10 years of age 3,701 1,130 30.5 per cent.
Class IV– 9 years of age 3,590 930 25.9 per cent.
Class V– 8 years of age 2,929 822 28.0 per cent.
Class VI– 7 years of age 3,388 758 22.3 per cent.

These may be compared with figures for the public schools in the
suburbs of Cologne:
 Attendance. Ill of influenza.
Class I–13 to 14 years of age 1,609 689 42.9 per cent.
Class II–11 to 12 years of age 2,885 1,094 37.9 per cent.
Class III–10 years of age 1,683 626 37.1 per cent.
Class IV– 9 years of age 1,758 552 31.4 per cent.
Class V– 8 years of age 1,771 502 28.2 per cent.
Class VI– 7 years of age 1,938 510 26.3 per cent.

The increase of disease incidence with age is apparent. Finkler’s

explanation for the higher incidence among the children of the
suburbs, “that the children in the country had usually to walk a
greater distance to school” does not appear to be complete.
Comby found that out of 3,411 school children in Lausanne 1,840
contracted influenza. This shows a relatively high incidence in
children of school age in that city.
Concerning age distribution in 1889–90 Leichtenstern remarks
that the greatest morbidity incidence was in school children,
adolescents and young adults, especially the last. Nursing infants
were attacked in considerably less degree than any of these other
ages. Also in the higher ages those above sixty were attacked in lesser
degree. The greatest morbidity frequently was between the ages of
twenty and forty. Abbott concluded on the basis of estimates
furnished him from various institutions and individuals in the State
that people of all ages were attacked but the ratio of adults was
greatest, of old people next, and of children and infants least.
Relationship of occupation to morbidity incidence.—Leichtenstern
found that the only apparent influence of occupation on the
incidence of influenza depended upon the liability to exposure in the
various occupations. He remarks particularly on the large incidence
of influenza among physicians. In contrast was the low incidence in
lighthouse keepers. In 1889–90 among 415 dwellers on 51 lightships
and 20 isolated lighthouses on the English coast only 8 persons
developed influenza and these in four localities, and in every instance
there was traceable direct communication from some other source.
There is contradictory evidence as to whether individuals working
out of doors are more apt to develop influenza. Certain statistics
show that postmen and individuals working on railroads were
attacked more frequently and earlier than others, while other
statistics show that in railroads the office personnel was attacked
earlier than individuals on the trains and those working on the
tracks.
Abbott concluded that special occupations did not appear to have
had a marked effect in modifying the severity of the epidemic. At the
Boston Post Office in 1889–90, of the indoor employees, 475 in
number, 25 per cent. were attacked. Of the carriers, 450 in number,
11 per cent. were affected with the disease. But there were other
reports of the same period which stated that the ratio of the persons
employed at outdoor occupations who were attacked was greater
than that of indoor occupation.
Finkler has discussed the influence of occupation at some length:
“When we compare the statistics of the last pandemic concerning
the influence of vocation, we see in the first place that those first and
chiefly were attacked whose occupation compelled them to remain in
the open air. This was shown especially by Neidhardt, who studied
the influenza epidemic in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. His
conclusions, however, were disputed by others. Thus, the prejudicial
influence of exposure to the open air was not supported by the
statistics of railroad employees in Saxony. Of those who were
employed in the outdoor service, 32 per cent. became ill; of those
employed in office work, on the other hand, 40 per cent. The
statistics of the local benefit societies in Plauen show that the
percentage of the sick among farm hands and builders was not
greater than that among the members of other benefit societies who
worked indoors. In Schwarzenberg the laborers in the forest who
were working in the open air all day were affected less than others,
and there was no sickness whatever in some forest districts.
Lancereaux, of Paris, states that most of the railroad employees who
suffered from influenza were those engaged in office work and not
those who worked in the open air. The preponderance of influenza
patients among the factory hands may be seen from a table prepared
by Ripperger:
 A. In the open air.
Occupation. Per cent. attacked.
Workmen and laborers of Niederbayern 7
Railway officials in Amberg 9
Peasants in Niederbayern 11.7
Workmen in the Salzach-Correction 20

B. In closed rooms.
Slag mills in St. Jugbert 15
Cotton mill in Bamberg 20
Cotton mill in Bayreuth 33
Sugar factory in Bayreuth 36
Aniline works in Ludwigshafen 38.8
Cotton mill in Zweibrücken 50
Tinware factory in Amberg 60
Factory in Schweinfurth 62
Gun factory in Amberg 70
Gold beaters in Stockach 80

“Many peculiar records of how individual classes of occupation

have fared are obviously to be explained by the fact that the infection
manifested its action in very different degrees. Thus, among the
workmen on the Baltic ship-canal only those became ill who lived in
the town of Rendsburg; those who had been housed in barracks
outside of the city were not affected. Of the 438 lead workers of
Rockhope, which is situated in a lonely valley in Durham, all
remained perfectly free from the disease during the three epidemics
of 1889–92.
“Some occupations are said to afford protection against influenza.
Thus workmen in tanneries, chloride of lime, tar, cement, sulphuric
acid, glass, and coke works, are said to have escaped the disease with
extraordinary frequency.
“We shall be compelled perhaps to agree with Leichtenstern in his
conclusion that occupation and social position only in so far exert an
influence on the frequency of the disease as certain occupations in
life lead to more or less contact with travellers.
 “Very remarkable is the proportionately small number of soldiers
affected, at least in the Prussian army, where, according to the
official record, the epidemic from its beginning to its end attacked
only 101.5 per thousand of the entire forces.”
Comparison of morbidity by occupation necessarily includes so
many variables and so many factors other than occupation that the
results are decidedly unsatisfactory. An example is found in Jordan,
Reed and Fink’s report of the incidence among troops in the Student
Army Training Camps in Chicago. They found a strikingly different
attack rate in the various groups studied. In the Chicago Telephone
Exchange they ranged from 30 to 270 per 1,000, although the
working conditions in the various exchanges were not materially
different. In the Student Army Training Corps at the University of
Chicago the lowest was 39 and the highest 398 per 1,000. The higher
rate group was particularly exposed to infection while the lower,
although composed of men of similar ages, living under similar
conditions, were guarded to a considerable extent against contact
with beginning cases.
Woolley has made an interesting observation on the effect of
occupation: “The disease was no respecter of persons except that it
was more severe in those who were hard workers. Those who tried to
‘buck the game’ and ‘stay with it’ showed the highest mortality rates.
So, the non-commissioned officers and the nurses suffered more
severely than the commissioned officers and privates.
“The annual morbidity rate per 1,000 was as follows:

For commissioned officers 261

Non-commissioned officers 208
Nurses 416
White enlisted men 568
Black enlisted men 1,130

“The annual mortality rate per 1,000 was:

 For commissioned officers 69
Non-commissioned officers 83
Nurses 77
White enlisted men 145
Black enlisted men 253

“The case mortalities were:

Per cent.
For commissioned officers 26.8
Non-commissioned officers 40.0
Nurses 33.3
White enlisted men 26.0
Black enlisted men 22.5

“The above figures are for the period of five weeks from August
28th to October 1st, 1918, and cover the most active portion of the
epidemic, but are obviously incomplete. They are given for purposes
of comparison.”
Woolley makes the observation that the organizations which spent
most of the time in the open and which were therefore most exposed
to the weather suffered least during the epidemic. This was
particularly true in the Remount Depot.
In our work we have attempted to classify our population
according to occupation along very broad lines.
“Infant” includes all individuals up to the age of two years. In these
the exposure is limited by the fact that they are either relatively
isolated at home, or when abroad, are still under relative isolation in
a perambulator or under the eye of a nurse. There is relatively little
commingling with the older age groups.
“Child,” refers to all children up to the age of school years. There is
relatively much greater commingling, particularly with other
individuals of the same age.
“School” refers to all children and adolescents who were reported
as attending school.
 “Home” includes not only the housewife, the housekeeper, but also
servants and invalids; all who in their daily routine spend the greater
part of the time in the home.
“Manual Indoors” refers chiefly to laborers in factories and
includes all manufacturing occupations in which the work is of a
manual character no matter what the particular branch.
“Manual Outdoors” refers to such occupations as ditch diggers,
street cleaners, conductors and motormen, longshoremen, trucksters
and teamsters, telephone and telegraph linemen, etc.
“Retail Sales Indoors” refers to clerks in stores and all other
individuals who, working indoors, come into about the same degree
of contact with the public-at-large.
“Retail Sales Outdoors” includes sales agents, life insurance
agents, traveling salesman, pedlers, newsboys, etc.
“Office,” officials, secretaries, stenographers, telephone operators,
telegraph operators, etc.
We have observed that in 1918 infants presented the lowest
incidence and school children the highest. Occupations designated
Home and Office were surprisingly high. Children also showed a high
incidence, one out of every five developing the disease. The records
show that manual labor, both indoors and outdoors, was associated
with a higher incidence than less strenuous work, as retail sales,
indoors and outdoors (Chart XXIII).
The attack rates in most of the occupations are so nearly the same
as to lead to no certain conclusions. It would appear from our
records that individuals working out of doors were less frequently
attacked than those whose occupation kept them in doors. The
groups at the two extremes of incidence correspond to what we
should expect when considering opportunities for contract. The
infant has least direct contact. His contact is only with one or a few
individuals, the mother or the nurse. This group developed the
disease in 5.8 per cent. The school child not only has the same degree
of contact as do adults, but also in the tussle and scramble of play the
contact becomes much closer. The factor of age plays a large part in
the occupational distribution and the apparent occupational
susceptibility is influenced by the age susceptibility.
 When we consider the occupational incidence in the various
districts we find that the only constant feature in the relatively small
groups is the low incidence among infants (Chart XXIV).
CHART XXIII.
CHART XXIV.
CHART XXV.
 CHART XXVI.

The first fact gained from a study of the 1920 occupational case
rate is that just as was the case in age incidence there is less variation
between the highest and the lowest than in 1918–19. While in the
first epidemic the highest occupational rate was five times the lowest,
in the second it was only twice the lowest (Chart XXV). But at the
extremes of the two charts we see some tendency to an inversion of
the order. In 1918–19 those occupied in “retail sales” outdoors
showed a low incidence, while in 1920 they were the highest. So also,
the incidence in the school group changed from highest in 1918 to
lowest in 1920. The incidence in infants increased; that in the office
workers decreased. No general conclusions are warranted from these
results.
In comparing the sex incidence by age groups we have found that
females as a rule showed a slightly greater incidence than males.
That this is not due fundamentally to occupational differences is
suggested by a comparison of the sex incidence in the two epidemics
studied. In 1918 the distribution is practically the same in the two
sexes in all occupations except “Home,” “Manual Outdoors,” “Retail
Sales Indoors,” “Retail Sales Outdoors” (Chart XXVI). In the first the
number of males is so small and in the second and fourth the
number of females is so small that these cannot justly be compared.
The group, “Retail Sales,” consists in 1918–19 of 69 males and 27
females, out of a total distribution in the population of 426 males
and 107 females. This is the only occupation that showed a definite
higher incidence among the females, and even here the number is
too small for accuracy. In 1920 this difference has practically
disappeared.
Effect of race stock.—Leichtenstern remarks in his monograph
that the reported differences in influenza morbidity among different
races, such for instance as European and other nationalities,
doubtless are due to factors other than genetic racial differences,
such as different modes of living, commerce, etc. The work of the last
two years calls for a reconsideration of this idea.
Frost in his valuable work found that “in the seven localities with
considerable colored population the incidence rates among the
colored were uniformly lower than among the whites, the difference
persisting after adjustment of the rate to a uniform basis of sex and
age distribution. The extent of the difference varied, being relatively
great in Baltimore, Augusta and Louisville, and very small in Little
Rock. This relatively low incidence in the colored race is quite
contrary to what would have been expected a priori, in view of the
fact that the death rate from pneumonia and influenza is normally
higher in the colored than in the white, and that the colored
population lived generally under conditions presumably more
favorable to the spread of contact infection.”
 Brewer, in his study of influenza in September, 1918, at Camp
Humphreys, finds that the colored troops showed a decidedly lower
rate than the white troops throughout the epidemic. He finds that the
incidence among colored troops was only 43 per cent. of that among
whites. The difference between colored and white organizations was
probably not due to difference in housing. Most of the colored troops
were in tents and the white troops were all in barracks. But the 42d
Company composed of negroes was housed in barracks under the
same conditions as the white troops of other organizations and they
had next to the lowest incidence of all organizations. Brewer
concludes that the colored race when living under good hygienic
conditions is not as susceptible to influenza as the white race under
the same conditions. The age distribution was the same in both
groups.
Armstrong concluded from figures based on reported cases of
influenza that in the autumn of 1918 proportionately four times as
much influenza and pneumonia was reported among the Italians as
was reported for the rest of the Framingham community, made up
largely of Irish or Irish-American stock. On the contrary, an
examination of a large proportion of the population of that town
showed a tuberculosis incidence among the Italian race stock of .48,
in contrast to an incidence among the Irish of 4.85 per cent. and of
2.16 per cent. in the entire population. Armstrong contrasts the
relative insusceptibility of Italian stock to tuberculosis, with the
apparent marked susceptibility to acute disease of the respiratory
tract, such as influenza and pneumonia; and the high susceptibility
of the Irish to tuberculosis, with their low susceptibility to acute
respiratory infection.
With regard to our work it is sufficient to state that the lowest
incidence in both epidemics, as well as in recurrent cases, was in the
Irish tenement districts. Both the Jewish and the Italian tenement
districts were slightly higher in both epidemics (Charts XIX and
XXI). The age distribution of the entire population of each of these
three districts was about the same, so it does not appear that the
slightly lower incidence among the Irish is due to a variation in the
age distribution of the population.
The subject of race in relation to influenza will be discussed further
under mortality.
 Mortality.
According to Marchese, in 1387 at Forli in Italy, not a person
escaped the disease, but only a few died. Gassar says that during the
same epidemic in Germany the patients suffered four, or at most five,
days with the most disagreeable catarrhal symptoms and delirium,
but recovered, and only very few were removed by death.
Pasquier remarks concerning an epidemic in 1411 that an
infinitude of individuals were attacked but that none died.
Concerning the epidemic of 1414 in France, Lobineau relates that
the disease was fatal only for the aged. Mezeray also speaks of the
high mortality of the old in this epidemic.
Regarding the pandemic of 1510, Thomas Short remarks that none
died except some children. Mezeray, on the other hand, says that the
disease had claimed many victims.
Pasquier and Valleriola both write of the epidemic of 1557, in
France, as being distinctly mild in character. Children only who
could not freely cough out the phlegm died. Coyttar speaks of the
absence of death except in tuberculous patients.
In the pandemic of 1580 individual observers report enormous
death rates. Thus, according to Schenkius, the disease killed 9,000
persons in Rome, while Madrid, Barcelona and other Spanish cities
were said to have been nearly depopulated by the disease. This high
mortality was, however, even at that time attributed by some
physicians to the injudicious employment of venesection.
Throughout the more recent history of pandemic influenza opinion
seems to have been nearly unanimous that blood letting has had very
bad results in the outcome of influenza cases. Remarks to this effect
have been made by the contemporaries of nearly every epidemic
since 1580.
According to Rayger and others during the epidemic of 1675,
nobody died of the disease itself with the exception of debilitated
persons, although it spared neither the weak nor the strong.
 Concerning the epidemic of 1688, Thomas Short writes for
England that though not one of fifteen escaped it, yet not one of a
thousand that had it died.
In 1712, Slevogt writes that in Germany “Fear soon vanished when
it was seen that although it had spread all over the city, it left the sick
with equal rapidity.”
Finkler remarks, concerning 1729–30, that, “The great mortality
which attended the epidemic in England and Italy seems somewhat
remarkable. Thus Hahn states that in London in the month of
September one thousand persons died each week, and in Mayence
forty persons daily. Most likely, however, other diseases which were
present at the same time added their quota to the mortality,
especially as the disease in other places, for example in Germany, ran
a benign course.”
Perkins, Huxham, Pelargus, Carl and others, concerning the
epidemic of 1732–33, all testify that the disease was of very low
fatality.
In 1742 the epidemic was evidenced by an enormous morbidity but
the disease was not dangerous as a general rule although Huxham
occasionally speaks of the virulent character of the disease in
England, and Cohansen says that in January, 1743, over 8,000
persons died from influenza in Rome and 5,000 in Mayence.
We have the testimony of Robert Whytt, for 1758, and that of
Razoux and Saillant and Ehrman for 1762, as to the low mortality of
the epidemic for those years.
According to Heberden the same was true for 1775, while Webster
tells us for 1780 that the disease was not dangerous but its effects
were seen the following year in the increased number of cases of
phthisis.
Finkler remarks concerning the epidemic of 1802, “The mortality
in this epidemic was small, only the abuse of venesection brought
many to the grave. Thus, so many farmers are said to have died in
Russia from it that venesection was forbidden by an imperial ukase.
Jonas says that many patients were bled either on the advice of a
simple village barber or by their own wish, and most of them died. In
Prussia also bleeding was declared detrimental by the Government.”
 He continues regarding 1836–37, that, “In London there died,
during the week ending January 24, 1837, a total of 871 persons, and
among these deaths there were 295 from disease of the respiratory
organs; during the week ending January 31st, out of a total of 860
deaths there were 309 from diseases of the respiratory organs.”
Watson, in describing the epidemic of 1847, discusses the
mortality:
“The absolute mortality has been enormous; yet the relative
mortality has been small. You will hear people comparing the
ravages of the influenza with those of the cholera, and inferring that
the latter is the less dangerous complaint of the two; but this is
plainly a great misapprehension. Less dangerous to the community
at large (in this country at least) it certainly has been; but infinitely
more dangerous to the individuals attacked by it. More persons have
died of the influenza in the present year than died of the cholera
when it raged in 1832; but then a vastly greater number have been
affected with the one disease than with the other. I suppose that
nearly one-half of those who were seized with the cholera perished;
while but a very small fraction, indeed, not more probably than two
per cent. of those who suffered influenza have sunk under it.”
Leichtenstern remarks on the very low mortality of 1889–90. In
Munich 0.6 per cent. died; in Rostock 0.8 per cent.; in Leipzig 0.5
per cent.; in fifteen Swiss cities 0.1 per cent.; in Karlsruhe 0.075 per
cent.; in Mecklenburg-Schwerin 1.2 per cent. This does not, however,
include the numerous deaths from complications, as from
pneumonia, and does not express the true mortality.
Newsholme gives the following table for mortality from influenza,
bronchitis and pneumonia, in England and Wales during the
epidemic years and the years immediately preceding them. The
figures express annual death rate per million of population. The
highest rate was reached in 1891. The table does not include deaths
registered as from other diseases, but due directly or indirectly to
influenza. Respiratory diseases in general show a greatly increased
death rate in years in which influenza is epidemic. Such is also true
to some extent with diseases of the nervous and the circulatory
systems.
 Death rate
per million Non-epidemic years. Epidemic years.
of
population 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892
from
Influenza 3 3 2 157 574 533
Bronchitis 2,117 2,041 1,957 2,333 2,593 2,266
Pneumonia 1,113 1,093 1,022 1,404 1,471 1,250
In a report by the United States Public Health Service early in 1919
the death rates from all causes in twelve large cities of this country
were compared for 1889–90 and for 1918–19. It was found that while
considerable irregularity in the curves was evident, the curves of the
two epidemics manifested on the whole quite a striking similarity for
the same cities considered individually and for the group as a whole.
The death rate rose to a much higher point during the autumn wave
of the 1918 epidemic than in the epidemic of 1889–90 in nine out of
the twelve cities. During both epidemics the rate was relatively low in
St. Louis, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. The mortality in all of these
cities was 26.7 in 1889, as against 35.2 for 1918. In the peak week the
rate rose to 55.6 in 1918 as against 35.4 in 1889.
The influenza deaths in Massachusetts in the year 1890 during a
period of fifty days were estimated by Abbott to have been 2,500. In
1918 Jordan estimates the mortality for the same state to have been
six times as great. The population of the state had not doubled in the
interval. The highest mortality from influenza in Massachusetts
during the 1889–93 epidemic occurred in January, 1892, during
which month the total deaths amounted to 6,309 which was greater
by 2,246 than the mean monthly mortality of the year, and greater by
more than 1,000 than the mortality of any month in the ten year
period 1883–92.
A comprehensive comparison of the damage done by influenza in
1918 with the deaths from other plagues has been made by Vaughan
and Palmer.
“The pandemic of 1918, when compared with that of 1889–90 is
estimated to have caused six times as many deaths.
“During the four autumn months of 1918, 338,343 cases of
influenza were reported to the Surgeon General. This means that in
the camps of this country one out of every four men had influenza.
 “The combination between influenza and pneumonia during the
fall of 1918 seems to have been closer and more destructive than in
any previous pandemic. During the autumn season there were
reported to the Surgeon General 61,691 cases of pneumonia. This
means that one out of every twenty-four men encamped in this
country had pneumonia.
“During the same period 22,186 men were reported to have died
from the combined effects of influenza and pneumonia. This means
that among the troops in this country one out of every sixty-seven
died.
“This fatality has been unparallelled in recent times. The influenza
epidemic of 1918 ranks well up with the epidemics famous in history.
Epidemiologists have regarded the dissemination of cholera from the
Broad Street Well in London as a catastrophe. The typhoid epidemic
of Plymouth, Pa., of 1885, is another illustration of the damage that
can be done by epidemic disease once let loose. Yet the
accompanying table shows that the fatality from influenza and
pneumonia at Camp Sherman was greater than either of these.
Compared with epidemics for which we have fairly accurate statistics
the death rate at Camp Sherman in the fall of 1918 is surpassed only
by that of plague in London in 1665 and that of yellow fever in
Philadelphia in 1793.
“The plague killed 14 per cent. of London’s population in seven
months’ time. Yellow fever destroyed 10 per cent. of the population
of Philadelphia in four months. In seven weeks influenza and
pneumonia killed 3.1 per cent. of the strength at Camp Sherman. If
we consider the time factor, these three instances are not unlike in
their lethality. The plague killed 2 per cent. of the population in a
month, yellow fever 2.5 per cent. and influenza and pneumonia 1.9
per cent.
“In four months typhoid fever killed 1.5 per cent. of the soldiers
encamped in this country during the war with Spain. Influenza and
pneumonia killed 1.4 per cent. of the soldiers in our camps in 1918
and it also covered a period of four months.”
The Bureau of the Census has made the following report
concerning influenza deaths in the United States: