Structure of a Legal Opinion

Parts of the Opinion
 Title and Heading

 Introduction
 Brief summary of decision  Facts/Background  Standard of Review  Issues/Analysis  Legal Reasoning  Holding

 Conclusion

Title and Heading  Official Citation  Court Name  Plaintiffs and Defendants  Docket Number  Date of Decision  Synopsis of Case  Brief disposition of case .

254 F. . 2003).D.Supp.Y.Official Citation  Case Name (Plaintiffs and Defendants)  Volume Number of Reporter  Reporter  Beginning Page Number  Court Name  Year of Decision Example: NRDC v.N.2d 434 (S. Evans.

Introduction Often includes: Facts Procedural history Resolution of case .

Standard of Review Often crucial to the outcome of the case! The more deferential the standard of review. . the more likely the defendant will prevail.

Conclusion . Rule. Analysis.Analysis: “IRAC” Issue.

on each issue presented . or holding.  Rule: The general legal rules governing the issue (statutes and common law)  Analysis: The court explains how the legal rules apply to the facts of this case  Conclusion: The court’s decision.IRAC  Issue: The legal question court is asked to solve.

Issue(s) and Holding(s) 5. Evaluation . Reasoning 6.Elements of a Case Brief 1. Facts 3. Identification of the Case 2. Procedural History 4.

74 S.Identification of Case 1. 483.S. 873 (1954). Ed. author of opinion. 347 U. 98 L. Example: Brown v. Vote: 9-0. legal topic classification. C.J. Author: Warren. Law. Civil Rights . Legal Topics: Const. Name of case 2. Optional: vote. 686. Full citation 3. Board of Education. etc. Ct.

Facts 1. Principal parties to the dispute 2. Relationships among those parties 3. Events that led to the dispute .

Procedural History 1. The authoring court‟s disposition . The disposition(s) of lower courts. if any 4. The legal claims and relief sought (but keep this short!) 3. Which party/parties initiated legal action against which others? 2.

defenses. tailoring it to the crucial facts and legal rules of the case .a Question Presented) A material question of fact or law that arises from the claims.k. and arguments of the parties Hint: Try to state the issue as narrowly as possible.Issue Statement (a.

EXAMPLE ISSUE STATEMENTS BAD: “Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment for the defendant?” BETTER: “Is an employer liable in tort for discharging an at-will employee for a reason that violates public policy?” .

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

” . By discharging the employee because she refused to participate in a public „mooning.‟ the employer violated public policy reflected in a criminal statute prohibiting indecent exposure.Holding: The court’s answer to the question presented in the issue Simple answer: Yes or No Detailed answer: Transform issue into a holding in the form of a statement Example: “Yes.

Reasoning 1. Rule and Rationale 2. Distinguishing Dicta Dicta: Statements in the opinion that help explain the court‟s reasoning but address questions not squarely presented in the dispute before the court .

Did the court put the proper amount of emphasis on equitable considerations? . Was the reasoning convincing? 2.Evaluation 1. Did the court properly analyze the statute or constitutional provision? 4. Did the court apply the proper standard of review? 3.

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

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.Martin and other named plaintiffs appeal the trial court's dismissal on summary judgment of their class action lawsuit against the City of Seattle. Each parking ticket incurred a $20 fine.06. [FN1] Therefore. we must dismiss the case. Under RCW 2. Appellants may not aggregate their claims against the City in order to reach the $200 limit so as to confer jurisdiction. We do not reach the merits of the claim because we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.030. The purported class consists of all persons who received parking tickets as a result of short-changing meters during a six-year period. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful