Legal Analysis

Captions and Citations

Judicial History and Facts

Review

• Syllabus

• Headnotes

• Summary

• Key Number

Caption

• Caption—title of case– Long caption– Short caption– Citation reference

• Name of parties

• Reporter references

Decoding the Caption

• Full names of parties and related actions

Supreme Court of the United StatesTEXAS, Petitioner

v.Gregory Lee JOHNSON.

No. 88-155.

CaptionSupreme Court of the United States

BROWN et al.v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KAN., et al.

BRIGGS et al.v.

ELLIOTT et al.

DAVIS et al.v.

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VA., et al.

GEBHART et al.v.

BELTON et al.

Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10.

Reargued Dec. 7, 8, 9, 1953.Decided May 17, 1954.

Ernesto A. MIRANDA, Petitioner,v.

STATE OF ARIZONA.

Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner,v.

STATE OF NEW YORK.

Carl Calvin WESTOVER, Petitioner,v.

UNITED STATES.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,v.

Roy Allen STEWART.

Nos. 759-761, 584.

Argued Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966.Decided June 13, 1966.

Rehearing Denied No. 584 Oct. 10, 1966.

Citation

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S.Ct. 2533 (1989)

Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan.,  347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686 (U.S. 1954)

Examples

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/www.supremecourtus.gov

VICTOR A. RITA, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

No. 06-5754

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

127 S. Ct. 2456; 168 L. Ed. 2d 203; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8269; 75 U.S.L.W. 4471; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 381

February 20, 2007, Argued June 21, 2007, Decided

Citations

• Bluebook

• California

• ALWD

Citation--Bluebook

Case name Vol. Reporter/series Page (Circuit Date)

Smith v. Jones 101 P.2d 62 (Ariz. Ct. App 1994)

Rochester v. Tucker, 488 U.S. 960 (1992)

Flynn v. Brown, 106 F.2d 987 (5th Cir. 1972)

Flynn v. Brown, 96 F. Supp. 456 (S.D.N.J. 1971)

SEE PAGE 12 IN TEXT

Citation—California Style Manual

Smith v. Jones (Ariz. Ct. App 1994) 101 P.2d 62

Allen v. Bates (1994) 34 Cal. App. 4th 376, 289 Cal. Rptr. 78

Rochester v. Tucker (1992) 488 U.S. 960

California Reporters

• Cal. California Reports

• Cal. App. California Appellate Reports

• Cal. Rptr. California Reporter

• P. Pacific Reporter

• LEXIS

• D.A.R. Daily Appellate Reports

Federal Reporters

• U.S. United States Reports

• S.Ct.Supreme Court Reporter

• L.Ed. Lawyers Edition

• F. Federal Reporter

• F.Supp Federal Supplement

• Lexis & WL

Regional Reporters

• P. Pacific Reporter

• A. Atlantic Reporter

• S.W. Southwest Reporter

• S.E. South Eastern Reporter

• S. Southern Reporter

• N.E. Northeast Reporter

What do these citations tell you?

• U.S. v. Spy Factory, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 450 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

• U. S. v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1979) • People v. Morgan, 197 Cal. App. 2d 90, 16 Cal.

Rptr. 838 (1961)

• De Lancie v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 865, 183 Cal. Rptr. 866, 647 P.2d 142 (1982).

Procedural History

• Nature and result of all proceedings that occurred PRIOR to case report you are reading

• First, look at citation

• Consider the rules of appellate procedure

Appellate Process--Civil Cases

STATE FEDERAL

State Trial Court District Court

Appellate Court Circuit Ct. of Appeals

State Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court

(If Federal Issue) (Writ of Cert.)

Appellate Process--Criminal Cases

STATE FEDERAL

State Trial Court District Court

Appellate Court Ct. of Appeals

State Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court

(Certiorari)

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS VS. CURRENT PROCEEDING

• Judicial History = Prior Proceedings

• Examples:San Diego v. Roe

Procedural History

Prior Proceedings: Give details, explain how the case arrived at the current court

DO NOT give results of current proceedings in this part of brief.

Components of a Procedural History

• Prior Procedings:– Trial court

• Parties’ names

• Relationship of Parties

• Who sued whom

• Result of trial court proceedings

» I.e. Verdict, motion for summary judgment/other motion/dismissal

• Who appealed

Procedural History cont.

• If current proceeding is in Supreme court then also discuss appellate court proceedings:– Identify Court– Result of appeal

• reverse/remand/affirm

Current Proceeding

• The Judicial History has a brief statement about how the case arrived at the current proceeding:– i.e. – (If decision is appellate court decision, then “Plaintiff

appealed.” or “Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate, etc.”).

– (If Supreme Court) then “Supreme Court granted a hearing.”

• END JUDICIAL HISTORY HERE

Writing Judicial History

• Refer to trial court as “trial court”

• This is history--write in past tense and use complete sentences

• State what courts did—Give a brief reason

• Avoid word “contend”

• DO NOT TELL WHAT CURRENT COURT DID--ONLY TELL HOW CASE GOT THERE

Judicial History Checklist—What to Include

1. Identify who sued whom

2. Describe the general nature of the suit in one sentence

3. Describe the procedures that occurred in the trial court i.e. Were motions made?

Was there a jury/court trial? Who won?

4. If the case is in a state Supreme Court, explain what the appeals court did.

Affirm/reverse/remand 5. If the case is in the U.S. Supreme Court, on a writ from a state

supreme court, what did the state supreme court do?

Notes on Writing Judicial History

Use verbs that describe something that the court does or that a party does in court:

Party:

Sue

File

Make a motion

Appeals

Petitions

Cont.

Trial Court: • Award judgment• Jury returned a verdict• Granted Motion• Denied Motion

Appellate Court:• Affirm• Reverse• Remand

* Be sure to be specific as to what is affirmed or reversed

FACTS AND CASE LAW

• All case law revolves around facts

• For a case to be precedent or stare decisis the essential facts of the reported case must be same or similar to the essential facts of your client’s case.

Importance of Identifying Essential Facts in a Reported Case

• Determining if a case is stare decisis

• Using a case in a Memorandum

Analyzing Facts of Case Law

• Sorting the facts as

– 1. Essential/ Relevant

– 2. Significant/ Explanatory

– 3. Insignificant/ Unnecessary

How to Sort the Facts• A fact is relevant or essential if the fact

pattern changes substantially when the fact is removed or changed (Sometimes called Key Facts)

• A fact is explanatory or significant if it simply helps the researcher understand what actually happened

• A fact is unnecessary if when removed it does not alter the fact pattern

Guidelines

• Court’s own characterization of fact• I.e. important, noteworthy etc.

• Repeated references

• Reaction to Parties’ evaluation

Key Facts

• Facts are key facts because they are necessary to understand the holding in the case. They are related to the holding.

• Therefore, try to identify the holding or rule of law before determining key facts

Hints

• To determine essential facts look to rule of law in case (Holding).

• Look to language in opinion– “Facts”– Relevant Facts

• READ THE WHOLE CASE!

Writing a Statement of Facts

• Keep sentences short

• Use “active voice”

• Avoid specific dates unless relevant

• Identify parties by their relationship to case, not by name, i.e. Plaintiff/appellant,

• NEVER QUOTE

• If facts are involved, outline before writing

Organizing the Facts

• Chronological

• By Cause of Action

• Final draft should include only relevant/explanatory facts