How to Read a Case

How to Read a Case A CLE by Lisa Benedetti October 7, 2021 This CLE will cover the fundamentals of how to read a case, particularly for litigating attorneys. We’ll go through the anatomy of a typical appellate opinion, cover the various standards of review, and talk about specifically what to look for when either using or distinguishing a case in motions practice. During the CLE, we will be using a specific opinion as our guide throughout this process, Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009).

I.

ANATOMY OF AN OPINION

Judicial opinions – at least most modern ones – usually follow a similar pattern. Knowing this pattern is useful for a number of reasons. Of course it helps in navigating opinions quickly when doing legal research. But in a broader sense, it also helps as a guide for legal brief writing.

Remember, clerks and judges read a lot of judicial opinions too, and are familiar with their structure. So the more you can mimic that structure when writing legal briefs, the more persuasive you’ll be.

1.

Introduction: This is usually a short section, maybe only a paragraph or two,

broadly summarizing the opinions contents, including whether the court “affirmed” or “reversed” the decision below.

1

Page 2

2.

Facts: This is where the opinion lays out the facts of the case, including both the

underlying facts (i.e. the dispute among the parties that led them to court, before the lawsuit was filed), as well as the procedural history (i.e. what happened after the lawsuit was filed, such as discovery, motions practice, trial, and so on).

Not all cases focus on the underlying facts and procedural history equally. Which details the opinion focuses on can tell you a lot about what kinds of legal issues are at stake. For example, in Magaña, the opinion spends almost no time talking about the underlying facts (i.e. the car crash that injured the plaintiff), and instead goes into great detail about the procedural history, and primarily the discovery disputes among the parties.

3.

Standard of Review: The Standard of Review determines how much “deference”

the appellate court will give to what happened below. Standards of Review are not an exact science – easier to define or describe than to put into practice. They exist on a continuum of sorts, ranging from no deference, to some deference, to absolute deference. Although there are far more Standards of Review than I address here, below are the most common ones found in personal injury cases: NO DEFERENCE

SOME DEFERENCE

MORE DEFERENCE

De Novo Review

Substantial Evidence

Abuse of Discretion

Applies to questions of law, such as Summary Judgment motions

Applies to appellate review of jury or other factfinder decisions

Applies to most trial court procedural decisions

An intermediate appellate gives no deference to the decision of the trial court. The Supreme Court gives no deference to the decisions of either.

A factfinder’s decision will stand unless no substantial evidence supports it.

An intermediate appellate court will only reverse a trial court’s decision on a clear abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court will evaluate the trial court’s decision the same way (giving no

Page 3

deference to the court of appeals).

The Standard of Review is important for multiple reasons.

When presenting a brief or a motion to the trial court, it is helpful for the trial court to know how closely its decision could be scrutinized if the issue went up on appeal. Trial courts never want to be reversed on appeal, which is more likely to happen if they make an error subject to de novo review than if they make an error subject to abuse of discretion.

Also, the Standard of Review is useful for assessing the persuasiveness of one opinion’s holding over another opinion, particularly when the standard of review involves some level of deference.

Take, for instance, an opinion that holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion. That opinion isn’t saying the trial court was right. It’s just saying the trial court wasn’t wrong. A different trial court, presented with a similar set of circumstances, could come to the opposite conclusion, yet that decision may not be an abuse of discretion either.

By contrast, an opinion that holds the trial court did abuse its discretion is far more informative. It shows how far is too far, when a trial court has crossed the line. It’s a powerful tool to be able to present an opinion to a trial court and say “this case here shows that if you don’t decide as I’m suggesting, you will have abused your discretion.”

4.

Legal Analysis: This is where most of the “meat” of an opinion is found. It lists

the issues at stake, describes the rules that are relevant to deciding those issues, applies those rules to the facts at hand, and explains how the court reached its ultimate conclusion. Opinions

Page 4

will generally follow this pattern of (1) Issue, (2) Rules, (3) Analysis/Application, and (4) Conclusion, for each issue at stake, whether there’s one issue or many.

Much like the facts section, legal analysis sections may focus more on the rules, or more on how those rules apply to the facts, depending on the issues at stake. And this can provide valuable insight into where you should focus your attention in your briefing. Is the issue resolved in most cases based on the law/rules that apply, without much concern for the individual facts?

Make sure to describe the law in detail. Is the issue extremely fact-specific? Make sure to develop your description of the facts of your case.

5.

Conclusion/Outcome: Much like the introduction, this section will briefly

summarize the opinion’s holding, as well as the “outcome” (i.e. Did the appellate court affirm the decision below, meaning no further action is required? Or did the appellate court reverse the decision below, usually meaning the case must be remanded – sent back – for further proceedings?)

6.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: In some cases, though not all, there may be

concurring or dissenting opinions. Concurring opinions generally agree with parts of the majority opinion (at minimum the opinion’s outcome), but disagree about some or all of the reasoning behind it. Dissenting opinions disagree with the outcome of the majority opinion entirely.

Although most of the time, trial court briefings focus on majority opinions and not concurring or dissenting opinions, don’t ignore them. Occasionally they can offer valuable insights, such as details that the majority chose to downplay or ignore (which could help distinguish the majority opinion’s decision from the circumstances of your case, if that’s your goal), or policy arguments that could be useful if you’re trying to argue for a change in the law.

Page 5

II.

USING / DISTINGUISHING OPINIONS

Reading an opinion is one thing. Using an opinion is another. There are no hard and fast rules providing the “right” way to use an opinion (it depends on the types of issues at stake), but below I’ve provided some guidelines: 1.

Rules Statements: Collect the rules statements made any court opinions

discussing your issues. These can help you craft the rules statements you intend to use in your briefing. But don’t feel like you must state those rules exactly as the court did. Motions practice is ultimately about advocacy and persuasion. Take, for example, the following statements: Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Each is stating the same rule, but from opposite perspectives. You may choose to use the first phrasing if you are seeking summary judgment, but instead use the second phrasing if you are opposing summary judgment. This is just one basic example, but the concept can work in many circumstances.

2.

How is opposing counsel using the opinion? Let’s say opposing counsel cites a

number of cases. How much attention should you give each case? In principle, you should give them all your utmost attention. But in practice, that doesn’t always work. A good rule of thumb is to focus more of your attention (and your response briefing) on those cases that opposing counsel focuses on. Are they citing a case just for a generalized rule statement, like the summary judgment standard I mentioned above? Such a case probably doesn’t deserve as much of your attention as a case they describe in great detail.

Page 6

3.

Analogous or Distinguishing Facts: This is where a lot of attention is often paid

in briefing. It generally involves two parts. First, finding what you think are the most analogous opinions to your case and emphasizing those. And second, picking apart the opinions cited by opposing counsel and explaining why they are distinguishable (or even better when possible – why they actually support your position).

In doing this work, it can be tempting to focus on wherever it is in the opinion that the court says “we hold that….” Many people will call this the “holding” without giving it much thought. However, this may lead you astray when an opinion is grounded on an extremely unique set of facts (such as with Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009)). Those facts, and the court’s analysis of how the law applies to those facts, can often be far more important and impactful than a one or two sentence “holding” you may find at the top or bottom of the opinion.