1 / 19

Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis. Rationale. Rationale. What it is Reason for the decision or holding “The opinion” Utilizes traditional forms of logic Deductive Start with rule More commonly used in legal reasoning. Rationale, cont. The Holding is a rule of law that the appellate court reaches

desirae-cardenas
Download Presentation

Legal Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Analysis Rationale

  2. Rationale • What it is • Reason for the decision or holding • “The opinion” • Utilizes traditional forms of logic • Deductive • Start with rule • More commonly used in legal reasoning

  3. Rationale, cont. • The Holding is a rule of law that the appellate court reaches • The decision or conclusion is the result • Rationale describes how the court reached its conclusion or holding • Includes the arguments it accepts and the argument it rejects

  4. Importance of Rationale • When a reason for a rule fails, the rule also fails • In applying case law to your facts, case law applies when facts and issues are the same • When facts are different, you must look to rationale • When reason for original rule no longer is valid, then rule must change • i.e. Brown v. Bd of Educ. & Plessy v. Ferguson

  5. Rationale • Reason for Court’s Holding • Based on logical reasoning • In a case brief you are summarizing the Court’s reason for its decision

  6. Forms of Legal Reasoning or Analysis • Rule Based Reasoning • Rules found in codes • Rules found in cases • Analogical Reasoning • Comparing and distinguishing cases • Policy Based Reasoning • Good of society • Principle-Based • Appeals to a trait valued by society (morality, justice, fairness, etc.)

  7. Analogical Reasoning • Appears in almost all case opinions • Comparison of facts • Dickerson pg 298 (comparison with Long)

  8. Writing the Rationale • Remember this is a summary—not a commentary • Describe the rules that the court is relying on in reaching its conclusion • Cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, public policy • Describe how court applied to rules to facts of case to be briefed

  9. Rationale Should Include • Major Rules of Law • Constitutional provisions, cases, codes, public policy • May involve synthesis of various cases • Analysis of Law and Facts • Why the court is using these rules Is a case stare decisis? Is case analagous? Does a statute apply? Does public policy control • How the court applies the rules to your facts

  10. Identify Major Rules • Select major rules • Constitutional provisions • Codes • Cases: Look for cases that are analyzed, not just mentioned • DO NOT CITE SECONDARY SOURCES AS AUTHORITY FOR RULES

  11. Primary Law vs. Secondary Sources • Primary—constitutions, codes, cases, rules/regulations • Secondary sources—describe or explain primary law • Pg. 254-256

  12. Writing the Analysis in the Rationale • Usually follow the same order as the court does • If possible follow deductive reasoning • state general rules of law relied on by court and then show how the facts of the case relate

  13. Writing the Rationale/analysis • 1. Identify the holding before writing • 2. Ask: In general how did the court arrive at the holding (conclusion) • Did the court rely on cases, statutes, other considerations

  14. HINT • Go through rationale part of opinion • In margin, write one sentence summary of each paragraph • Then consolidate and condense

  15. Example Rationale: Rules: Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Common Law: Until the 20th century a search occurred only if there was a trespass as defined by common law; at common law a visual surveillance was never a search because the eye could not trespass. Katz v. U.S. A non-trespass situations was held to be a search. The Court held that electronic eavesdropping of a telephone conversation on a public telephone was a search because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call. Application The Court discussed the effect of technology on the right to expect privacy and recognized that various situations might require different results. In the case of the search of the interior of homes, the most commonly litigated area of protected privacy, there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the Fourth Amendment and in common law. Individuals have an expectation of privacy within their home. Relying on Katz v. U.S., the Supreme Court stated that even though police did not physically enter the home, obtaining evidence from within the home through the use of modern technology was still a search. To withdraw protection of this expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

  16. Examples • Arizona v. Hicks • San Diego v. Roe • Gideon v. Wainwright • Brown v. Bd. Of Educ.

  17. Briefing Cases • Case Name and Citation • Judicial History • Facts • Issue(s) • Holding(s) • Rationale • Rules • Analysis • Conclusion

  18. Case Briefs • Summary of opinion • No room for personal commentary or opinion • Book briefing • Identify parts of brief in margin of case

  19. Briefing v. Notetaking • In addition to briefing, you may need other “notes” on a case for later use • Quotations--You may want to use language of court in Memorandum, trial brief or appellate brief • Note pages from official and unofficial sources of all quotes

More Related