Legal Case Note

Legal Case Note

Case Note Guidelines
A. BASICS:
o Case Note-
• States the facts of the case
• Clarifies the difficult questions of law
• Summarizes the court’s reasoning
• Analyzes the implications of the decision
• Characteristics:
 Concise
 Engaging
 Thought-provoking
o Follow “2016 Guidelines”, NOT the samples or examples
• They could be using old formats
o 15 pages MAXIMUM
• Usually 12-13 pages
B. STRUCTURE/STYLE:
o Purpose
• Analyzes and explains the significance of a decision
• Provides a forum to challenge a court’s reasoning and assumptions
• Ask “What makes the case significant?”
 Focus on and explain that aspect of the case
 May be important for many reasons, including:
• B/C it decides a Q in a new way
• B/C it defies precedent
• B/C it conflicts w/ other authorities
• B/C it decides a new issue
• B/C it decides an issue consistent with precedent in the face of challenges from other authorities, commentators, or changing circumstances
o Format
• STRICT ADHERENCE REQUIRED
• ALL submissions MUST be on Word and named after your Splash ID
 MUST be saved in .doc, NOT .docx
• ONLY Splash I.D. # may appear on Case Note (NO other identifiers allowed)
• Remove ALL personal information from Word document
 On Mac
• Go to “Preferences”
• Click on “Personal Settings”, then “Security”
• Under “Privacy Options,” select “Remove personal information from this file on save”
• Save document
 On Word 2016
• Click “File”, then “Info”
• “Check for Issues”, and then “Inspect Document”
• Verify that the box for “Document Properties and Personal Information” is checked
• Click “Inspect”
• Click “Remove All” next to the inspection results for “Document Properties and Personal Information”
• Check for updates on TWEN DAILY
• This site OVERRIDES everything else:
 https://intranet.law.tulane.edu/Student-Activities/Write-On-Competitions
• ONLY electronic submissions to the TWEN Dropbox will be accepted
• The Restrictions include:
 Splash I.D. # should be included in the Top Header, right justified
 12-point, Times New Roman (text AND footnotes)
 One-inch Margins (top, bottom, left, and right)
 Double Spaced (text AND footnotes)
 Page #s should be included/centered at the bottom of EACH page
 Length may NOT exceed 15 pages, including footnotes
• May be considerably shorter
 Use Footnotes, NOT endnotes
 Citations MUST appear in the footnotes, NOT in the text
 Table of Contents is NOT necessary
• NO penalty for failure to include
• Typeface Standards: (Rule 2 Bluebook)
 Where BB calls for italics, use underlining
• Sample uses italics b/c it is in final published form
 Where BB calls for LARGE AND SMALL CAPS, use LARGE AND SMALL CAPS
 Blue Pages in BB are NOT relevant to the competition
o Structure
• EVERY Case Note:
 MUST be given a title
 MUST follow structure below:
• Overview
• Background
• Court’s Decision
• Analysis
• DO NOT blur the distinctions between the sections
• Each section has a different function
• MUST maintain the rigid structure
 Consider Footnotes:
• Overview- cite
• The noted case
• Background- cite
• Authority proceeding the decision of the case
• Authority that court MIGHT have used in making its decision
• Court’s Decision- refer to
• Noted case
• Its prior history, and
• Authorities ACTUALLY cited
• Analysis- cite
• ANY relevant sources

SECTIONS
A. Overview
o Purpose
• Provide reader w/ concise statement of
 Important facts
• MUST be confined w/in THIS section
 Procedural history, and
• MUST be confined w/in THIS section
 Holding of the case
o Rules
• NO more than 2 paragraphs
• Provide ONLY enough procedural history to make issue clear
• IF history is complex, relegate to a footnote
EVERY citation should be to the Noted Case
NEVER BEGIN section w/ a Date
AVOID Clichés
Content
Beginning
 EMPHASIZE certain facts to “hook” the reader and to establish the tone of the note
• Ending
 End the last paragraph w/
• Court’s SPECIFIC holding
• Underline “held” in sentence
• FULL citation w/in the text
 FINAL sentence ALWAYS consists of:
• “The [court’s full name] held that [rule of the case]. [Full Cite].”
• **ONLY time that a cite will appear in the Case Note text**
o Example
• The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of nondangerous pretrial detainees does not
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brothers v. Kelvenhagen, 28 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1994).
o Grading Rubric (Organization- 3pts total)
• NO more than 2 paragraphs
• ONLY Case Note was cited
• Gave facts and procedural history of noted case
• Used an effective “hook” at the beginning
• Concluded with “held” sentence
B. Background
o Purpose
• Provides the relevant legal and theoretical background to serve as a context for analysis (IV)
o Rules
• Careful organization of this section is ESSENTIAL
• Suggested Method:
• Introduce concepts broadly and substantially narrow the section’s focus to the issues presented in the case
Citations should cite to authorities the court used or might have used in making its decision
Content
Present and explain the relationship between the important cases, statutes, and secondary sources that inform the court’s reasoning and your discussion
• **DO NOT tie these authorities to the noted case UNTIL the Analysis section**
AFTER establishing background, turn to the development of the issue in case law
• BEGIN w/ HIGHEST court and move down the line of precedential authority in your discussion
Example
• If the noted case is in an Eighth Circuit case, begin w/ relevant S.Ct jurisprudence, then circuit court opinions, then district court opinions, and relevant
state court opinions, to the extent they are available and authoritative
Example
The standard of liability under CERCLA is strict. Congress intended a strict liability scheme of culpability to ensure that responsible parties pay cleanup
costs and to provide an incentive for care in the event of a hazardous waste release. Because of the harsh effects associated with strict liability, Congress was
reluctant to provide specifically for mandatory joint and several liability. As a result, courts have generally sanctioned joint and several liability on multiple
defendants only for indivisible harms.
Grading Rubric (Organization- 3pts total)
Discussed the development of the issue in the law
Cited to preceding authority that the court used or might have used
Did NOT tie authorities to noted case yet
Included a solid transition into the next section
Court’s Decision
Purpose
HEART of the Case Note
Describes, in detail,
 Court’s reasoning
 Methodology
 Tests
 Authorities
• Should explain, condense, synthesize, and highlight the court’s reasoning W/O simply paraphrasing the court’s decision
o Rule
• Citations should cite to:
 The Noted Case itself
 Its Prior History and
 The Authorities ACTUALLY cited by the court in the Noted Case
o Content
• FIRST sentence MUST begin w/:
• “In the noted case, the [court] [relate the noted case to the background]…”
Remainder of FIRST paragraph should restate each point of the holding
Devote a paragraph to EACH important step underlying the court’s holding
EACH concurrence/dissent should be summarized in a SINGLE paragraph
 May discuss in more detail IF it is particularly persuasive
 May be treated in a footnote IF it makes ONLY a technical point
o Example
• In the noted case, the Fifth Circuit followed the framework it promulgated in Valencia to analyze pretrail detainee excessive force claims.
o Grading Rubric (Organization- 3pts total)
• Cited to noted case, it prior history, and authorities ACTUALLY cited
• Adhered to “in the noted case” formula for First Sentence
• Devoted a paragraph to EACH step underlying the court’s holding
D. Analysis
o Purpose
• To explain BOTH positive and negative implications of the case
o Rules
• Analysis is NOT limited to the court’s treatment of the issues in the case
• EACH case present UNIQUE analytical problems
 May answer all, some, or none of the inquiries listed below
 May raise Qs NOT listed below
• Between 2 and 5 paragraphs
 Depends on complexity and significance of decision
• Citations may cite to ANY relevant authorities included in the Law Review packet
o Content
• Analyze the policy or bias behind the court’s decision
• Expose any inconsistencies in the court’s reasoning
• Indicate the possible effects of the decision
• Critically analyze the noted decision in relation to the other material
 Consider:
• Whether the decision is consistent w/ prior jurisprudence
• Whether the decision is a significant advance in the law
• Whether the decision is consistent w/ the purposes of the existing law
• Whether the decision is right for the wrong reasons, or
• Whether the decision creates a conflict w/ other jurisdictions
o Grading Rubric (Organization- 3pts total)
• Between 2 to 5 paragraphs long
• Analyzed and discussed the reasoning and significance of the court’s decision

FOR YOUR ASSIGNMENTS TO BE DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW