Briefing Cases

In an academic setting where homework dictates just about nil of your grade, you might be tempted to shirk it. After all, you went to undergrad, right? You only really have to know what the professor goes over in class. Just take good notes and you'll be good to go.

Well, not quite. Obviously, the entire grade (or nearly the entire grade - some schools and professors may allow a slight bump for good participation in class) is based on the final exam. However, you cannot expect to do really well on that exam without doing the reading, and the most important part of your reading assignments are the cases. Law school books often follow a format of setting up a topic through a normal textbook discussion of the issue followed by one or more cases designed to illustrate the concept. For example, a certain criminal law textbook devotes a section to how a capacity to obey affects the culpability of the defendant and follow it up with the famous The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884) case.

Regardless of whether you take notes on the reading or not, it is in your interest to at least brief the cases. You may have encountered briefing in your undergraduate studies, especially if you were a political science major or took pre-law courses. But for law school you will literally be reading a dozen cases or more per week, and it will be important to know the rules established in each of them for the final exam. Your briefs, in turn, need to be...well, brief. Prior to law school - and others have reported a similar phenomenon - my case briefs took almost an hour to complete, and would go on for two or three pages. Not very convenient to add to your course outlines when you start studying!

Within this first week, my whole practice of briefing has changed. I used to brief as I read, and I would painstakingly copy as much detail as I could from the judicial opinions. If you brief like that, you should know: you will actually save valuable time if you read the case first and then brief. In the short time I've been in law school, I've cut the amount of time it takes me to brief from nearly an hour to mere minutes, and the length of each brief is now between half and three-fourths of a page. They run a bit longer if there's a dissenting opinion. The point is, I've managed to increase efficiency and generate better-quality briefs just by changing my modus operandi in the practice.

However, it is possible that you have never even heard of case briefing. My experience during the first few days of law school was that there are as many people who have never had to do this for their classes before. The school, cognizant of this, has offered a plethora of opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with the process. They have offered how-to workshops, the professors have discussed it in the first days of the course, and some of the textbooks include short segments on briefing in the preface. Additionally, as I was reading some of the wide array of literature aimed at preparing entering 1L's, I came across a few chapters offering tips and guidelines (notably in Law School Without Fear, which is a pretty good primer overall if you're looking for one).

In short, there's just enough help out there to leave the unassuming student more than slightly confused. At the core of all the advice out there, though, case briefing can be reduced to one word: FIRAC.

That's no typo. FIRAC is an acronym that refers to the basic structure of a good case brief. It stands for Facts, Issue, Ruling, Analysis, Conclusion. I'll get into the specifics of what each of these means shortly, but let's stop for a moment and consider the advantages of this system. For one thing, it's pretty standard. You can adapt this basic form to almost any peculiarities in a professor's method (though it's important to point out that, as you won't be turning in your briefs, they really only need to make sense to you). Another big plus is that it mimics the basic format of your final exam answers, minus the facts portion (usually referred to, intuitively, as IRAC). Finally, it pretty effectively breaks down the main components of a case that you will need to know for classes. Having your cases set up in this format will enable you to quickly scan the page for the answer in class. When the professor singles you out and demands to know the issue raised in the case, it will be handy to just glance at your brief's issue section rather than drudge through the casebook, leaving an awkward silence in your wake.

The headings of each section may seem somewhat self-explanatory, but it is useful to describe them and their function in a law-oriented fashion. Each section has a very specific function in the overall calculus of the case and deserves attention as such.

1. Facts

The facts of the case. Since you will largely dealing with appellate decisions, the facts are often presented as a summary of what was discovered in the trial court proceedings - very rarely will an appellate decision concern a question of fact. This section may seem simple enough, but it will be your job to isolate the legally relevant facts. Since each case is dealing with a specific issue of law, you will only really be interested in those facts that lead the court to decide as it does. Let's use Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. 210 S.W.2d 588 (1948) to help illustrate. The following is from Judge Folley's opinion:

"The petitioners owned the surface and certain royalty interest in 3054.9 acres of land in Nueces County, upon which there was a producing well known as Elliff No. 1. They owned all the mineral estate underlying the west 1500 acres of the tract, and an undvided one-half interest in the mineral estate underlying the east 1554.9 acres. Both tracts were subject to oil and gas leases, and therefore their royalty interest in the west 1500 acres was one-eighth of the oil or gas, and in the east 1554.9 acres was one-sixteenth of the oil and gas.

It was alleged that these lands overlaid approximately fifty percent of a hugh reservoir of gas and distillate and that the remainder of the reservoir was under the lands owned by Mrs. Clara Driscoll, adjoining the lands of petitioners on the east. Prior to November 1936, respondents were engaged in the drilling of Driscoll-Sevier No. 2 as an offset well at a location 466 feet east of petitioners' east line. On the date stated, when respondents had reached a depth of approximately 6838 feet, the well blew out, caught fire and cratered. Attempts to control it were unsuccessful, and huge quantities of gas, distillate and some oil were blown into the air, dissipating large quantities from the reservoir into which the offset well was drilled. When the Driscoll-Sevier No. 2 well blew out, the fissure or opening in the ground around the well gradually increased until it enveloped and destroyed Eliff No. 1. The latter well also blew out, cratered, caught fire and burned for several years. Two water wells on petitioners' land became involved in the cratering and each of them blew out. Certain damages also resulted to the surface of petitioners' lands and to their cattle thereon. The cratering process and the eruption continued until large quantities of gas and distillate were drained from under petitioners' land and escaped into the air, all of which was alleged to be the direct and proximate result of the negligence of respondents in permitting their well to blow out. The extent of the emissions from the Driscoll-Sevier No. 2 and Elliff No. 1, and the two water wells on petitioners' lands, was shown at various times during the several years between the blowout in November 1936, and the time of the trial in June 1946. There was also expert testimony from petroleum engineers showing the extent of the losses from the underground reservoir, which computations extended from the date of the blowout only up to June 1938. It was indicated that it was not feasible to calculate the losses subsequent thereto, although lesser emissions of gas continued even up to the time of the trial. All the evidence with reference to the damages included all losses from the reservoir beneath petitioners' land without regard to whether they were wasted and dissipated from above the Driscoll land or from petitioners' land.

The jury found that respondents were negligent in failing to use drilling mud of sufficient weight in drilling their well, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the well blowing out. It also found that petitioners had suffered $ 4,620.00 damage to sixty acres of the surface, and $ 1,350.00 for the loss of 27 head of cattle. The damages for the gas and distillate wasted "from and under" the lands of petitioners, due to respondents' negligence, was fixed by the jury at $ 78,580.46 for the gas, and $ 69,967.73 for the distillate. These figures were based upon the respective fractional royalty interests of petitioners in the whole amount wasted under their two tracts of land, and at a value, fixed by the court without objection by the parties, of two cents per 1,000 cubic feet for the gas and $ 1.25 per barrel for the distillate. . . .

On the findings of the jury the trial court rendered judgment for petitioners for $ 154,518.19, which included $ 148,548.19 for the gas and distillate, and $ 5,970.00 for damages to the land and cattle. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause."

Got all that? Don't worry; we'll break it down into a more manageable chunk shortly. It should be apparent why I chose this case as an example now - there a lot of facts, and they're all fairly convoluted and sometimes maddeningly specific. This is critical for judges arriving at opinions, but counterproductive if you're trying to come up with a manageable length of material to be able to quickly skim over. This is also partly why I advocate reading the case once over before trying to brief and paying attention to its contextual place within the casebook, as that will give you a clue what the case is about (we'll talk more about this in the issue section).

Basically, as we will see, this case deals with the law of capture. In Texas, landowners are generally considered to have ultimate title to their real estate property, which includes oil and other resources below ground. However, by the law of capture, if an entity is engaged in a reasonable production of, in this case, oil, then any oil that migrates from one person's property into the area of production is no longer considered the property of the original landowner. This will come into play somewhat in the analysis section, but it helps to understand the legal question at hand before extrapolating the relevant facts.

So what happened in Elliff? Basically, the oil company was negligent and some of their oil wells suffered a blowout. This in turn cased drainage from the Elliffs' property, which was adjacent to the area being drilled. They sued the oil company for damages. The oil company argued that the law of capture protected them from liability for the drainage. The jury in the trial court found for the plaintiff, but the Court of Civil Appeals overturned that decision.

And that, my friends, is actually a pretty darn good fact section. You might spiff it up a bit if you want to read something along the lines of "Defendants were drilling for oil on land east of plaintiff's property..." and so forth. But this gives us the basis underlying the legal dispute.

It's also important, I wish to note, to include the procedural history of the case. I actually like the make it a separate category, even though that messes up the whole FIRAC scheme a bit. Either way, do include what lower courts have said on the topic. This is especially important because law school deals mostly with appellate cases, since these deal with questions of law rather than fact-finding.

One final caveat is that the facts should not be taken as gospel truth - instead, the appellate court generally assumes that whatever facts the lower court decided upon are true. The appellate decision rests on applying a legal question to the given facts. When you're discussing the case in class, the professor may challenge you to look beyond the presented facts and decide if some other set of facts might be true - i.e. if, in a criminal case, someone made a deal with the police to escape prosecution.

2. Issue

The issue is the legal question in the case. We have already touched on it in the preceding section. We noted above that the plaintiffs were arguing based on their ultimate title to their land while the defendants cited the law of capture as a protection against a lawsuit.

The issue is presented as a question. For Elliff, then, we might say something like, "Does the law of capture protect the oil company in this case?"

Sometimes, the opinion will flat out say, "The issue the court is called upon to decide is this." Other times, it's not so easy. It will become easier to spot the issue as you read more cases, though. Also, as I mentioned before, reading the context material in the casebook can be a big help; when in doubt, it should at least get you in the general realm of the issue and give you some good clues.

3. Ruling

Another personal touch I like to bring to this is separating the holding from the rule established. What's the difference? The holding is just the result of the case - pretty much the answer to the question we came up with for the issue section. The rule is the common law precedent that the court comes up with to help decide future cases of a similar nature. The formal principle of justice - treat like cases alike - dictates that instances with similar situations ought to have similar results, and the rule gives future courts in a given jurisdiction guidelines for deciding future instances. If there is no new rule established, then this can refer to the common law precedent being cited (for instance, the oil company was arguing that the rule of capture should control the outcome) or statutory authority.

The relationship between the holding and the rule is syllogistic in nature. Ultimately, the rule is the major premise, the facts are the minor premise, and the holding is the conclusion. Let's continue with Elliff. The rule was that non-liability under the rule of capture cannot be extended to cases of negligence and the holding was that the Elliffs were entitled to damages. So, presented as syllogism, we would have:

• Major premise: Non-liability for the company under the rule of capture does not extend to instances of negligence.
• Minor premise: The drainage from plaintiff's property was the result of the company's negligence.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the company is liable.
  

If you can easily chart this relationship, then you've correctly identified the rule, the holding, and the relevant facts. Remembering this relationship can help you if you're having trouble with any of these sections.

4. Analysis

This is the "why" of the court's decision, and the end toward which much of the opinion is geared. In Elliff, the court's analysis follows like so. The law of capture is intended to protect entities engaged in reasonable development of oil and other natural resources. However, it does not give companies the right to waste. Because the accident resulted from the company's negligence, the drainage from plaintiffs property constitutes a wasteful use of the oil. The drainage was neither legitimate nor a reasonable appropriation because it was caused by the lax care of the company's oil well. As a result, the plaintiff's lost the ability to produce the oil on their land as they saw fit. Therefore, the law of capture does not apply and the company owes the plaintiffs damages.

If there was a dissenting opinion, I like the include that as well. It will be good practice to at least be cognizant of opposing arguments, and dissenting opinions will only help you in class if the professor calls on you to argue the opposite position that the court took. Thus, while the dissenting opinion has no legal weight, it is good to be familiar with it.

5. Conclusion

I like to call this one the procedural result section. Basically, this is what the court ordered in regards to the case at hand. For Elliff, the case was reversed (meaning the Court of Civil Appeals decision is thrown out) and remanded (meaning it was sent back to the trial court for a new trial; there's a little bit of procedural mumbo-jumbo at the end about jurisdiction, but if you're doing this for your property class, that won't matter as much).

---

And, with that, we have created a perfectly good case brief. As a last note, be sure to include the case title at the top of the page so you remember what case you're dealing with.

You should be briefing probably all of the cases you go over in class in order to have complete notes at the end of the semester. Like I said, your briefs don't need to strictly follow this format. This will just provide you with the foundation you will need. Most importantly, get a sense for what your professor wants you to know for class discussion and for what works best for you personally.

This is a skill that not everybody has going into law school. By familiarizing yourself with the process before you start, you will have an advantage both in crafting your study outlines and in participating in class.

~PAX