Chapter 14 – Applying the Law

Predicting Outcome of Client’s Case

• Look for analogies and distinctions between client’s case and prior decisions
• Select precedents

Look for Analogies and Distinctions

• Determine whether governing rules of law and issues are same in both cases
• Decide key facts in prior case
• Decide how facts are similar to or different from facts of client’s case
• Explain why similarities or differences matter

Selecting Among Precedents

• Rely on primary authority over secondary
• Rely on mandatory over persuasive authority
• Rely on highest appellate court over intermediate-level appellate court decisions

All Things Being Equal

• Use:  
  • A case from the highest appellate court in your jurisdiction
  • That was decided recently
  • With facts similar to your own and
  • Decided by a unanimous court and
  • Written by a well-known and respected judge.

Written Analysis

• Use IRAC format (Issue-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion)
• Synthesize cases

Point of Law

• For successful analysis:
  • Tell enough about each case so that the reader will not have to read the cases
  • Give both sides of argument
  • Work with the facts
  • Explain why the court should care that facts are same or different

ISSUE

• Briefly and clearly states the issue to be discussed in the paragraph
• Limits sentence to one idea  

RULE

• States the rule of law arguably governing the issue in question.

ANALYSIS

• Explains how prior court opinions determine the outcome for your client’s case.
• Briefly gives facts, holding, and reasoning to demonstrate how and why case relates to facts and issues of client’s situation.
• Notes strong parallels  and critical differences between cited opinion and client’s situation and why they matter

CONCLUSION

• Concludes
• Gives the bottom line

TRANSITION

• Acts as short transition sentence
• Leads to next issue to be discussed

Synthesizing – Wrong Way

• The Kent supreme Court has decided four cases on parental immunity from tort suits by their children. In the first case in 1995, the court decided that a parent was immune from suit for negligence brought by his twelve-year-old son. Abbott v. Abbott (1995).  However, in the next suit, in 2000, the court held that a parent was not immune. . .

Synthesizing – Right Way

• A parent is immune from a tort suit brought by his child if the suit is for negligence and the child is a minor. First parents are not immune from suits for intentional torts. The Kent Supreme Court has held that parents are not immune from the child’s suit for assault, Brown v. Brown and for battery, White v. White. . .

Office Memoranda Format

• Heading
• Question Presented (Issue)
• Brief Answer
• Facts
• Applicable Statutes
• Discussion
• Conclusion

Heading

• To:       Janice Brown, Senior Partner
• From:   Chris Parker
• Re:       Janice Miller; File NO. 11-483
• Possibility of Proving Negligence
• Date:    April 5, 2011

Questions Presented

• Whether Mr. Booth can be found   negligent for failing to take precautions once warned of his fatigue; when Mr. Booth state to Ms. Miller that he was tired, he continued to use a chain saw to cut wood, and the chain saw slipped, slicing off a piece of bark that flew into Ms. Miller’s eye, blinding her.

Brief Answers

• Yes, Mr. Booth will be found negligent. If someone is fatigued while using a chain saw, it is foreseeable that an injury will occur. Mr. Booth was warned of his fatigue but continued to use the chain saw. Therefore, Ms. Miller’s injury was foreseeable, and Mr. Booth was negligent in failing to heed the warning.

Facts

• Last March our client, Janice Miller, was injured in an accident that occurred in her backyard, She and her husband, George Booth, were cutting firewood. Br. Booth was using a chain saw, and Ms. Miller was stacking the pieces of wood as Mr. Booth cut them. Neither was wearing safety glasses althought each owned a pair.

Applicable Statutes

• Mass. Gen. L. ch. 231, § 85 (2011)

Discussion

• The resolution of two issues will determine whether Mr. Booth will be found liable for the injuries Ms. Miller sustained. The first relates to whether Mr. Booth was negligent for continuing to use his chain saw after he acknowledged that he was feeling fatigued. The second is whether Ms. Miller will be barred from recovery because of her failure to wear safety goggles. . .

Conclusion

• On the first issue, regarding Mr. Booth’s failure to stop using the chain saw after experiencing warning symptoms of fatigue, he will be found negligent. Once he felt tire, an accident was foreseeable, and Mr. Booth was negligent in continuing to use a dangerous tool, such as a chain saw.