Common Law Legal System

Using Precedent&

Case Law Reasoning

Review

Read the famous Carbolic Smoke Ball Casea copy can be found on the class website

Briefly summarize the most important facts of the case.Summarize the company's defense.Find the ratio decidendi or holding of the case

remember, we are looking for the rule of law upon which the decision is based.

Give an example of obiter dicta form the casea rule of law unimportant to the decision of the

case.

The Development of Case Law

Precedent

The legal principle or rule created by a court which guides judges in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.Sometimes called AuthorityTo serve as precedent for a pending case, a prior decision must have a similar question of law and factual situation.

Distinguishing

identifying aspects of a previous decision that would make inappropriate the use of its ratio in the present case

Facts are too differentRationale is not the same

Sometimes this means narrowing the ratio/holding of a case to its fact-based result, referred to as ‘limiting a case to its facts’.

Non-Legal Example: The Grocer

Grocer places apples in store front window hoping to attract customers.Grocer places potato in the back of the store because he thinks they won't draw customers into the store and thus limited window space should not be wasted on them.Grocer leaves. Employee realizes he forgot to ask Grocer where lemon should go.How should we go about trying to answer this questions?

Things to Consider

Is there really a “correct” answer here?What is the “issue”?Is there a general standard (“policy”) that the grocer has applied to what should appear in the window?What does the employee have at his disposal to help him decide where to put the tomato?Is this really enough to make a good decision? Is there something missing?

Using Fruits and Vegetables as Review

Appellate ReviewMajority OpinionsConcurring OpinionsDissenting Opinions

Case Law Reasoning

Prior cases (precedent) are used to predict, explain or justify the outcome of an undecided case.NOTE – some argue that this can also be referred to as analogical reasoning and is a form of deductive reasoning.

EXAMPLE – man sues ferry company for losing his luggage on an overnight trip.

No case law or statutes concerning lost luggage on ferries, but . . . . .

Similar Cases

The Hotel CaseHotel proprietor was found liable for guest's stolen luggage.Contract of hospitality involved keeping guest's luggage safe.

The Train CaseTrain found not liable for passenger's lost luggage.Despite fact that passenger “rented” space to sleep, court found contract was primarily for travel, not lodging.

Analogy: Using Precedent

the judge chooses some non-identical features of the precedent as being sufficiently similar to the current case to warrant the same outcome.

NOTE: we are not so much talking about stare decisis.The question here isn't really what's binding, but what past cases can help the judge decide the current case.

Characteristics of Analogical Reasoning

Facts play an important role.They are used to both draw analogies to past cases and distinguish past cases from the current one.

It said that decisions using this reasoning are narrow:

“the law develops case by case, the Court in each case deciding so much as is necessary to dispose of the case before it.”Whereas cases using inductive reasoning are said to create broader propositions of law.

Revising/Narrowing

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) Agnello v. U.S. (1925)

California v. Carney (1985)

Car:● mobile● low privacy expectation● no warrant required

House:● not mobile● high privacy expectation● warrant required

Motor Home (RV):● Fully mobile● higher expectation of privacy than car● RULING: Warrant NOT required

To Review

Case comparison is based on the premise that like cases should be decided in like manner.We attempt to make predictions about the outcome of our problem by drawing analogies from similar cases:

Similar issues, possibly fact patternsApplicable reasoning/rationale & policy statements

BUT, this is rarely done by only comparing one case at a time to the legal problem to be decided!

Applying Multiple Cases: Synthesis

Purpose – to find collective meaning of multiple cases that have precedential value.Rules of law are clarified through the holdings of multiple cases

Involves more than listing cases GOAL - make a reliable prediction (memo) or convincing arguments (brief) about how the law applies to a new set of facts.

When Do We Synthesize

No express definition of an element or termRule in precedent not expressly statedDefinition of term or element is vagueCases analogized don’t address all the determinative factsSeveral cases are all relevant in some way

Why Do We Synthesize

Remember, precedent operates in a fact sensitive manner:

as facts change slightly, so do the rules created by case law.if you look at only one case, you won't fully appreciate or understand the area of law being addressed by the precedent.

After reviewing several cases, we need to communicate the standards the court will apply in a clear, concise manner.

Case Synthesis: The Grocer

Green Apple – placed in front because of its vibrant color.Banana – despite vibrant color, placed in back of store because of grocer custom that anything placed in window must last for at least a week and a banana will rot within the week due to sun light.Orange – Goes in back because only something that can be eaten immediately without any preparation goes in the front.Eggplant – Goes in the back because it is not a fruit.

Synthesis Example

Client: owner of Spot the dog that bit a child.

Facts: Your client informs you that his dog Spot bit Timmy Jones after Timmy tripped over a rug and fell toward Spot, scaring the dog and causing him to bite Timmy. Your client wants to know if he has to pay Timmy’s doctor bills.

Statute: If a dog injures a person without provocation, then the dog’s owner must pay the medical expenses of the injured person.

Synthesis Example

Can we answer our client's question simply by reading the statute, or do we need more?If we need more, what exactly to we need to figure out?

After Research, We Find . . .

Smith v. Albano: A delivery boy threw a newspaper over thick bushes and hit a sleeping dog on the other side. The dog ran after the boy and bit his leg. The judge held that the dog was not provoked and, therefore, the owner must pay the medical expenses.Barnett v. Rosen: A dog was barking in front of the plaintiff’s home, so he went over and hit the dog with a stick to get him to stop. The dog then bit the plaintiff’s arm. The court held that the plaintiff provoked the dog and, therefore, the owner is not required to pay the plaintiff’s doctor bills.Matthews v. Donaldson: A girl threw a stone at her neighbor’s dog, but missed and did not hit the dog. The dog chased the girl and bit her arm. The judge held that the girl provoked the dog and, therefore, the owner is not required to pay the girl’s medical expenses.

Create a Decision Chart

Case Key facts Holding – Provocation?

Smith Yes or No

Barnett Yes or No

Matthews Yes or No