2. Structure of a Legal Opinion

3. Parts of the Opinion Parts of the Opinion  Title and Heading  West Headnotes (not available on Lexis)  Introduction  Brief summary of decision  Facts/Background  Standard of Review  Issues/Analysis  Legal Reasoning  Holding  Conclusion

4. Title and Heading  Official Citation  Court Name  Plaintiffs and Defendants  Docket Number  Date of Decision  Synopsis of Case  Brief disposition of case

5. Official Citation  Case Name (Plaintiffs and Defendants)  Volume Number of Reporter  Reporter  Beginning Page Number  Court Name  Year of Decision Example: NRDC v. Evans, 254 F.Supp.2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

6. West Headnotes  Written by Westlaw attorneys, not court!  Summarizes important legal issues and rules, in order of appearance in case.  Each note corresponds with numbered heading in text of case.  Useful for: legal research, skimming case, getting a short summary of the applicable legal rules

7. Introduction Often includes: Facts Procedural history Resolution of case

8. Standard of Review Often crucial to the outcome of the case! The more deferential the standard of review, the more likely the defendant will prevail.

9. Analysis: “IRAC” Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

10. IRAC  Issue: The legal question court is asked to solve.  Rule: The general legal rules governing the issue (statutes and common law)  Analysis: The court explains how the legal rules apply to the facts of this case  Conclusion: The court’s decision, or holding, on each issue presented

11. Elements of a Case Brief 1. Identification of the Case 2. Facts 3. Procedural History 4. Issue(s) and Holding(s) 5. Reasoning 6. Evaluation

12. Identification of Case 1. Name of case 2. Full citation 3. Optional: vote, author of opinion, legal topic classification, etc. Example: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Vote: 9-0. Author: Warren, C.J. Legal Topics: Const. Law; Civil Rights

13. Facts 1. Principal parties to the dispute 2. Relationships among those parties 3. Events that led to the dispute

14. Procedural History 1. Which party/parties initiated legal action against which others? 2. The legal claims and relief sought (but keep this short!) 3. The disposition(s) of lower courts, if any 4. The authoring court’s disposition

15. Issue Statement (a.k.a Question Presented) A material question of fact or law that arises from the claims, defenses, and arguments of the parties Hint: Try to state the issue as narrowly as possible, tailoring it to the crucial facts and legal rules of the case

16. BAD: “Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment for the defendant?” BETTER: “Is an employer liable in tort for discharging an at-will employee for a reason that violates public policy?” EXAMPLE ISSUE STATEMENTS

17. BEST: “Is the employer liable in tort for discharging an at-will employee because of her refusal to participate in a public ‘mooning’, a discharge that contravened the public policy against indecent exposure reflected in a criminal statute?”

18. Holding: The court’s answer to the question presented in the issue Simple answer: Yes or No Detailed answer: Transform issue into a holding in the form of a statement Example: “Yes. By discharging the employee because she refused to participate in a public ‘mooning,’ the employer violated public policy reflected in a criminal statute prohibiting indecent exposure.”

19. Reasoning 1. Rule and Rationale 2. Distinguishing Dicta Dicta: Statements in the opinion that help explain the court’s reasoning but address questions not squarely presented in the dispute before the court

20. Evaluation 1. Was the reasoning convincing? 2. Did the court apply the proper standard of review? 3. Did the court properly analyze the statute or constitutional provision? 4. Did the court put the proper amount of emphasis on equitable considerations?

21. Martin v. City of Seattle, 105 Wn.App. 1041 (2001)

22. Martin and other named plaintiffs appeal the trial court's dismissal on summary judgment of their class action lawsuit against the City of Seattle. The purported class consists of all persons who received parking tickets as a result of short-changing meters during a six-year period. Each parking ticket incurred a $20 fine. We do not reach the merits of the claim because we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Under RCW 2.06.030, the appellate jurisdiction of this court does not extend to civil actions at law for the recovery of money or personal property when the original amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $200. Appellants may not aggregate their claims against the City in order to reach the $200 limit so as to confer jurisdiction. [FN1] Therefore, we must dismiss the case.