Anyone here good with Case Briefs?

BhoscaCapall

I appreciate this isn't a "do my homework!" forum, but I'm sure someone here can give me a quick pointer.

I've to compile a case brief from a case report, and been given the headigns Parties, Facts, Procedural History, Law at Issue, Cause of Action, Summary of Judges Opinion and Analysis of Judicial Opinion.

Some of those are self explanatory, but I'm a bit confused by Law at Issue and Cause of Action, particular the latter. I've read that CoA is the law the plaintiff claims was broken, but then what's Law at Issue?

Procedural History would be the legal timeline leading up to the current case, such as previous appeals etc right?

Much appreciated!

NoQuarter

Cause of Action would be negligence, breach of contract, assault etc etc etc

Law at issue is the current law in that area.

BhoscaCapall

NoQuarter wrote: »

Cause of Action would be negligence, breach of contract, assault etc etc etc

Law at issue is the current law in that area.

So would I be correct in saying the CoA section is just a few words, and the Law at Issue might take the form of a question e.g. "Is the Act of 1955 inconsistent with Article 50 of the the Constitution"?

NoQuarter

Hrmmm, sort of.

In your example the CoA would be constitutionality so the CoA would be "is the 1955 Act inconsistend with the Constitution?" It would be a small paragraph though.

Then you would go on to the Law at Issue which would be all the relevant cases and legislation that the judge considered in his judgment. This might span for a few pages!

There would be a bit of a blur between porcedural history and the law at issue in my opinion.

iamanengine

Hi, sorry for digging up an old thread but I didn't want to start a new one.

I'm doing a case brief at the moment, it's a case mainly based around causation and I'm completely lost as to what to say for law at issue/cause of action.

Is it basically whether the plaintiff was negligent? Should I include cases?

Then when I come to cause of action I seem to be saying the same thing for it, or should there be overlap?

Any bit of advice at all would be a great help!

Procrastastudy

Out of interest what course requires you to do this? I think we've a lecturer really keen on getting something like this going.

Reloc8

Cause of action is the legal basis for the Plaintiff's claim.

Law at issue is the legal points relied upon by the Plaintiff and Defendant, whether based on interpretation/application of statute, or decided case-law on similar facts and why a given case should be applied, distinguished, over-turned (if dealing with a case at appellate jurisdiction) or what-not.

nuac

Congrats Reloc8 - very succinct yet complete reply to query.

iamanengine

Reloc8 wrote: »

Cause of action is the legal basis for the Plaintiff's claim.

Law at issue is the legal points relied upon by the Plaintiff and Defendant, whether based on interpretation/application of statute, or decided case-law on similar facts and why a given case should be applied, distinguished, over-turned (if dealing with a case at appellate jurisdiction) or what-not.

Thank you Also the case I'm doing is an appeal case where the original plaintiff is now the respondent. So in cause of action do I talk about the legal basis the appellant has or the cause of action the original plaintiff had?

Reloc8

I think you should refer to and discuss both.

You can't really explain the appeal without setting out the basis of the Plaintiff's claim at first instance.