Brief 3 cases:
1. RAINBOW TRAVEL SERVICE v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION
2. DANIEL D. FOLEY v. INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
3. MEXICALI ROSE et al. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
How to Brief a Case
PURPOSE: A case brief should not be a summary of the entire case. Instead, it should be a synopsis of the case broken down into logical segments. Thus, you should be able to review your case brief to recall the case so as to discuss the case. A brief should be no more than 1-3 pages for any case.
SEGMENTS: You should outline the case using these logical segments:
– P=Procedural History: What is the procedure that brought the case to this point; i.e., Appeal from a jury or bench trial judgement or granting of a motion for summary judgement.
– F=Facts of Case: In this section you should not re-cite all of the facts of the case, but only the most relevant ones to the case, rule of law and provide a bases for you to recall the case so as to discuss it.
– I=Issues Presented by the Case: In this section you should outline the legal issue presented, such as in the Larson case (chair falling from the sky): Did the doctrine of Res ispa Loquitur apply to this case when the chair fell out of the sky and hit the plaintiff?
– R=Rule of Law Applicable to the Case: In this section you should outline the actual legal rule that the court was asked to decide in the case. As for example, in the Larson case: For the doctrine of Res Ispa Loquitur to apply, the plaintiff must be able to establish that the instrumentality of the injury was within the exclusive control of the hotel and that the type of incident would not normally occur unless someone was negligent.
– A=Application of the Law to the Issues and Facts Presented: In this section you should discuss briefly how the law applies to the facts and legal issue presented. As for example, in the Larson case, this section may read: Here, the doctrine of Res Ispa Loquitur should not apply because the hotel was not in exclusive control of the chair, but rather at least the hotel guest whose room the chair came from would have had control over the chair. The hotel cannot control what the guest do in their room, to hold otherwise would require the hotel to place a guard in every room to make sure that a guest does not open a window and throw out a chair.
– C=Conclusion: In this section you should discuss the courts ruling or holding and whether or not you agree with it and why or why not. Again, not another discussion of the Application section, just your conclusion.