Legal Research & Writing 2 : Week of 4 March 2008

4 March

• The only place our name should go is on the signature page.
• Also, the caption needn't include all the insurance copies.
• Talk about the summary judgment standard (in an overview): light most favorable to plaintiff, no material facts available. That should be brief.
• If a thing has no exhibit number, we can not cite to it.
• Argument checklist
  • Choose points within the court's discretion
  • Choose content that resolves your objectives, while also meeting the court's concerns
  • Use emotional facts only if they are relevant and help demonstrate a sense of justice that favors your side
  • Omit unneeded points
  • Group and sequence content: follow the order the court will need (imunity, then public policy)
  • Begin each paragraph with an affirmative statement of your point (i.e., of a rule).
  • Answer opposing points, but do not organize around them
  • Use sentence structure to add/diminish emphasis: short vs. long, active vs. passive, etc.
• Immunity is much more legally dependant than public policy; Stevenson dissent will turn up in immunity, at least a little, but also in policy
• Don't necessarily have to address all 6 policy issues
• Plaintiffs will definitely talk about Stevenson dissent; defendants will need to talk about it, since plaintiffs will make it a central concern
• Thesis statement is the conclusion that you want the judge to reach. Point headings are equivalent to thesis statements (but don't repeat them). They should say more or less the same thing, but say them differently.
• State the rule, say where you got it (i.e., what case, and what facts in that case make it relevant), say how it applies to our issue.
• When applying a rule to our facts, pre-emptively rebut any counter-application
• Conclusion should be very brief: all the arguing should be in the argument section.
• Sub-point-headings: can be just words or phrases (optional). Single space point headings, and indent them.
• On public policy, you don't need to win all points: one is enough.
• Miller: contributing money; Green: encouragement
• Need to use case law to introduce the restatements (i.e., a case uses the restatement, so we can) (e.g., Gritzner)
• Brief: 11 pages, including everything.
• If (reliance = duty), as restatement suggests, then reliance had better not = procurement.