Legal Research & Writing : Week of September 12

1. Memo
2. Legal synthesis
3. Closed memo

• Engagement ring memo
  • "Probably so" is the correct answer
  • Engagement ring is a gift contingent on a promise
  • No-fault dis-engagement: no claims for emotional distress
  • So the statute that the trial court said barred Brown doesn't actually bar it, because this isn't damages for emotional distress
• You can get an A+ for participation. :)
• Synthesis
  • Putting things together. The binding together of several bodies of law.
  • The whole (the synthesized thing) stands for an enitre rule or policy
  • The holding, the principles: that's what's relevant in a case
  • All these examples are from the same jurisdiction
  1. First read the statute
  2. Then read the cases
     1. Service refused to elderly woman
     2. Derrogatory remarks about age in an employment setting
     3. Age-insulting letter sent to old guy
     4. Derrogatory remarks about age to an elderly woman in an academic setting
  3. Then brief them to extract the rules
     1. Private conduct; Not outrageous because not public
     2. Outrageous because it is public, the victim was susceptible because he's extra-old, and the employer was in a position of authority
     3. Private, so not outrageous
     4. Public, university duty to protect students
  4. Then extract the key themes
     • Public
     • Person is actually old
     • Positon of authority
     • For the plaintiff, these things pertain, and for the defendant they do not
  • So we made a nice synthesis. Dan/Carole has a nice approach to order. Make your thesis, then immediately follow with the application of the facts. Ideally, our synthesis should have been two paragraphs: tell when it is outrageous, and then when it isn't.
  • The golden rule: state the thesis, then show holdings for, then against, showing how they support the thesis
  • So "no syntheses" is just re-stating things-- just a case report, pulls out no principles. We need to be analysts, not reporters.
  • Make it so that someone reading your writing is better off, and takes less time than reading the source materials themselves. Emphasize the principles, not the cases. That's *why* we read the cases, of course.
  • Here's the rule. In cases A and B the rule was triggered. Here is how the cases triggered the rule. In cases B and C, the rule was not triggered. Here are the ways in which it wasn't triggered. Note that when it's not triggered, we don't get an express ruling of why, so some additional notes might be helpful.
  • The point is to predict future rulings based on what we've seen in the past. So the facts are important, but the point is to organize them around the principle. Compare the reasoning, not just the result. WHY were the cases decided the way they were? That's the main thing.
  • "Cite Case A" is a stand-in for actual citation. Citation format is not very important at the moment.
• Synthesis exercise for home
  • Two paragraphs should be sufficient/ideal
  • Substantial and reoccurring are the two main terms
  • Memo format is OK (To:, From:, Re:)
• Qualities of good legal writing hand-out
• Memo assignment
  • Memo file is distributed
  • Read Nelson in depth
  • Fill out identifying facts worksheet
  • Issues: was dog provoked? was victim in a place where she was entitled to be?
  • The cases will help us define these issues
  • Generally these problems are designed so that there is some leeway