Structure of a Legal Opinion

1
Structure of a Legal Opinion
2
Parts of the Opinion

• Title and Heading
• Introduction
• Brief summary of decision
• Facts/Background
• Standard of Review
• Issues/Analysis
• Legal Reasoning
• Holding
• Conclusion

3
Title and Heading

• Official Citation
• Court Name
• Plaintiffs and Defendants
• Docket Number
• Date of Decision
• Synopsis of Case
• Brief disposition of case

4
Official Citation

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

5
Introduction

• Often includes
• Facts
• Procedural history
• Resolution of case

6
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.

7
AnalysisIRAC
Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
8
IRAC

• Issue The legal question court is asked to
  solve.
• 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 courts decision, or holding, on
  each issue presented

9
Elements of a Case Brief
1. Identification of the Case
2. Facts
3. Procedural History
4. Issue(s) and Holding(s)
5. Reasoning
6. Evaluation
10
Identification of Case
1. Name of case
2. Full citation
3. Optional vote, author of opinion, legal topic
classification, etc.
Example Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Vote
9-0. Author Warren, C.J. Legal Topics Const.
Law Civil Rights
11
Facts
1. Principal parties to the dispute
2. Relationships among those parties
3. Events that led to the dispute
12
Procedural History

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

2. The legal claims and relief sought (but keep
this short!)
3. The disposition(s) of lower courts, if any
4. The authoring courts disposition
13
Issue Statement(a.k.a Question Presented)
A material question of fact or law that arises
from the claims, defenses, and arguments of the
parties
Hint Try to state the issue as narrowly as
possible, tailoring it to the crucial facts and
legal rules of the case
14
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?
15
BEST Is the employer liable in tort for
discharging an at-will employee because of her
refusal to participate in a public mooning, a
discharge that contravened the public policy
against indecent exposure reflected in a criminal
statute?
16
Holding The courts 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. 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.
17
Reasoning
1. Rule and Rationale
2. Distinguishing Dicta
Dicta Statements in the opinion that help
explain the courts reasoning but address
questions not squarely presented in the dispute
before the court
18
Evaluation
1. Was the reasoning convincing?
2. Did the court apply the proper standard of
review?
3. Did the court properly analyze the statute or
constitutional provision?
4. Did the court put the proper amount of
emphasis on equitable considerations?
19
Martin v. City of Seattle, 105 Wn.App. 1041
(2001)
20
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.