Common Law Legal System

Reading a Case&

Introduction to Research

US: Elements of a Case

CAPTION TYPE OF ACTION STATEMENT OF FACTS PROCEDURAL HISTORY CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ISSUE(S) HOLDING/RULE(S) OF THE CASE RATIONALE RESULT

Caption: Trial Court, Federal

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

ESTATE of Elvis PRESLEY, Plaintiff,v.

Rob RUSSEN, d/b/a The Big El Show, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 80-0951.513 F.Supp. 1339

April 16, 1981.

---------------------BROTMAN, District Judge.

Caption: Appeals Court, State

Supreme Court of California COMEDY III PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff and

Respondent,v.

GARY SADERUP, INC., et al., Defendants andAppellants.

No. S076061.April 30, 2001.

NOTICE

Some appellate decision will report both currentstatus, e.g. “Respondents,” as well as statusin trial court, e.g. “Plaintiff”

A Quick Word About Case Citationsin the United States

Reading Cases

The United States

Typical U.S. Citation

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Name of the Parties

Volume

Report Name

Page Number

Year

U.S. = United States Reports

Name of the Parties

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965).

U.S. = U.S. ReportsOfficial government reporter

S.Ct. = Supreme Court ReporterWest Publishing

L.E.2d = United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers Edition

Lexis/Nexis

Federal Appeal Court Cases

United States court of appeals cases are published in the Federal Reporter (F., F.2d, or F.3d).

Published by WestNo “official” reporter

Smith v. Jones, 3 F.3d 111 (3d Cir. 1993)

Name of Parties Volume

Reporter Name

PageCourt Year

Federal Court of Appeals

Federal District Court Cases

United States district court cases and cases from some specialized courts are published in the Federal Supplement (F. Supp. or F. Supp. 2d).

Smith v. Jones, 25 F. Supp. 2d, 444 (M.D. Ala. 2002)

Parties volume reporter page court year

State Decisions

Published in several places Many states have their own “official” reporters. West publishes “unofficial” reporters that are

grouped by region:North Eastern Reporter, Atlantic Reporter, South Eastern Reporter, Southern Reporter, South Western Reporter, North Western Reporter, Pacific ReporterNOTE – NY, Cal, and Ill also have West reporter.

Regional Reporter System

State v. Regional Reporter

City of Troy v Ohlinger, 438 Mich 477 (1991) People v Ferency, 133 Mich App 526 (1984)

or

People v Ferency, 351 NW2d 225 (Mich. 1984).

Parties Volume Reporter Page Year

Court

The Full Citation

People v Ferency, 133 Mich App 526; 351 NW2d 225 (1984).

NOTE:the state reporters can easily be identified because they use an abbreviation related to the state itself:

N.Y., Mich, Calif, IllMany state court rules require both the official and “unofficial” citations for cases.

Examples

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala.

2002) Geary v. Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish

Sch., 7 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1993) Jackson v. Commonwealth, 583 S.E.2d 780 (Va. Ct.

App. 2003)

State or Federal court?Specifically, what court?

Pinpoint Citations

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158 (1973).

What is this number?

Type of Action

Usually found at the very beginning of the opinion.

Although some opinions might begin with the facts. Purpose: explain what the general substantive

and/or procedural issues are in the case.Procedural – the kind of relief the moving party is requesting.Substantive – the legal issues raised by the parties that will determine who wins the case.

Type of Action Example

As a general proposition, this case is concerned with the rights and limitations of one who promotes and presents a theatrical production designed to imitate or simulate a stage performance of Elvis Presley.

This action is currently before the court on a motion by plaintiff, the Estate of Elvis Presley, for a preliminary injunction. It seeks a preliminary injunction restraining defendant, Rob Russen, d/b/a THE BIG EL SHOW (hereafter Russen), or anyone acting or purporting to act in his or its behalf or in collaboration with it from using the name and service mark THE BIG EL SHOW and design, the image or likeness or persona of Elvis Presley or any equivalent, the names Elvis, Elvis Presley, Elvis in Concert, The King, and TCB or any equivalent or similar names on any goods, in any promotional materials, in any advertising or in connection with the offering or rendering of any musical services.

Type of Action: Example

A California statute grants the right of publicity to specified successors in interest of deceased celebrities, prohibiting any other person from using a celebrity's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without the consent of such successors. (Former Civ.Code, § 990.) FN1 The United States Constitution prohibits the states from abridging, among other fundamental rights, freedom of speech. (U.S. Const., 1st and 14th Amends.) In the case at bar we resolve a conflict between these two provisions.

Procedural History/Issues

The parties waived the right to jury trial and the right to put on evidence, and submitted the case for decision on the following stipulated facts: (the court then sets forth the facts)

******** On these stipulated facts the court found for Comedy III and entered judgment against Saderup awarding damages of $75,000 and attorney’s fees of $150,000 plus costs. The court also issued a permanent injunction . . . .

********The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment . . . upholding the award of damages, attorney fees, and costs. In so doing, it rejected Saderup’s contentions that his conduct (1) did not violate the terms of the statute, and (2) in any event was protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.We granted review to address these two issues.

Reading Cases

How it is done in England:Reading Cases, Citations

“Caption”

Parties

Date of Judgment

Judges

NOTE: L.JJ. = Lord Justices

Coca-Cola Financial Corporation v Finsat International Ltd. and Others

Court of Appeal

L.JJ. Neill, Morritt, and Hutchison

1996 April 17, 18; 25

Court

Parties

Catchwords

words identifying legal issues addressed in the case.

Practice—Set—off—Contract—Loan agreement and guarantee containing term excluding right of set—off—Demand for repayment under loan agreement and guarantee—No payment received—Plaintiff suing for amount due—Defendants claiming to set—off counterclaim—Whether term excluding set—off enforceable—Whether plaintiff entitled to summary judgment— Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54), s. 49(2)

Headnotes

In 1987 the plaintiff lent the first defendant U.S.$5m. under a loan agreement guaranteed by the secondto eighth defendants. By the guarantee all the defendants agreed to make payment of all sums due under the loan agreement on written demand by the plaintiff. The guarantee further provided that the guarantors would be liable as primary obligors, and that article 5.7 of the loan agreement should . . . .

On the appeal:- Held,.dismissing the appeal, that the parties to a contract were not prevented by section 49(2)of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or any ground of public policy from including in it a term excluding the rightof set-off; that, in the circumstances, the defendants had no arguable counterclaim against the plaintiff, and even if they had, they were prevented by article 5.7 of the loan agreement . . . .

HeadnoteHeadnote, summarising the is-sues, and, after Held, summaris-ing the judgment

Citations Used in the Case

Name of the lower court judge –NOTE – J. is for “judge”

Summary

By writ dated 26 April 1994 the plaintiff, Coca-Cola Financial Corporation, claimed against the defendants, Finsat InternationalLtd. (formerly known as Satra International Ltd.), Satra Ltd., Satra Holdings Ltd., Satra Trading Ltd., Permalite Ltd., IONDeposition Ltd., U.S. Chrome Corporation and Lada Cars (Cayman) Ltd. the sum of U.S.$5m. and interest due under a loanagreement dated 19 October 1987 and a guarantee dated 15 October 1987 made in anticipation of the loan agreement. On 21October 1995 the judge gave summary judgment, under R.S.C., Ord. 14 , for the plaintiff in the sum of $5m. and interest of$996,234·49 against each of the defendants.

By notice of appeal dated 9 February 1995 the defendants appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that (1)(a) the judge erred in failingto find that the defendants had an arguable ground of defence to the plaintiff's action; (b) he found or proceeded on the basis thatthe defendants had arguable substantial claims against the Coca-Cola Co. for sums exceeding by some millions of dollars theplaintiff's claim in the action, all concerning the Coca-Cola Co.'s products and activities in the Soviet Union . . . .

The facts are set out in the judgment of Neill L.J.

A summary of the pleading & facts may be given

NOTE: the drafter of the report is telling the reader to look for more facts in the opinion by Lord Justice Neill

Counsel Arguments

Michael Beloff Q.C. and Timothy Wormington for the defendants. A party to court proceedings cannot waive or contractout of the right given to him by law to set off one debt or claim against another: Taylor v. Okey (1806) 13 Ves. 180 andLechmere v. Hawkins (1798) 2 Esp. 626 . Accordingly, . . .

Kenneth Rokison Q.C. and Michael Pooles for the plaintiff. There is no principle of law which renders a provision suchas article 5.7 invalid or unenforceable: see Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Kloeckner & Co. A.G.[1990] 2 Q.B. 514 . . . .

Names of Counsel; the Law Reports also give their argument

Decisions by the Judges

Cur. adv. vult.

25 April. The following judgments were handed down

Neill L.J.

The plaintiff in these proceedings is Coca-Cola Financial Corporation ("C.C.F.C."). By an agreement in writing dated 19October 1987 ("the loan agreement") C.C.F.C. agreed to lend to the first defendant, Finsat International Ltd. ("Finsat")(then known as Satra International Ltd.), a sum not exceeding U.S.$5m. . . .

I would dismiss the appeal

Curia advisari vult is a Latin legal term meaning "the court wishes to consider the matter"

The date the decisions were made public

Opinion of Lord Justice Neill

Ends by clearly stating the outcome

The Opinions

Morritt L.J.

I agree.

Hutchison L.J.

I also agree

The opinion of Lord Justice Morritt

The opinion of Lord Justice Hutchison

NOTE: If judges may agree with the outcome but give a differentreason OR disagree with the outcome and file a “dissenting” opinion.

Subsequent Actions

Petition: 25 July. The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Browne-Wilkinson, LordMustill and Lord Hoffmann) dismissed a petition by the defendant for leave to appeal.

One must petition the House of Lords (now Supreme Court)to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal. This petitionwas denied.

How To Cite Law Reports

Round brackets ( ) are used around the year in a legal citation when the series has consecutive volume numbers and the year is not essential for finding the case.

Square brackets [ ] are used where the series has no consecutive volume numbers and the year is essential for finding the correct volume.

Neutral Citations

NOTE: Judgment Number NOT page number!!!

Complete Citations for Reports with Available Neutral Citations

The Meaning of Precedent Generally

“precedent” literally means something that has happened before

In ordinary English, “precedent” has come to mean an event which defines a standard

“Unprecedented” is something that is uncommon or well beyond standard.

“Spam levels run to unprecedented heights”recent headline from PC Magazine

Precedent

The legal principle or rule created by a court which guides judges in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Sometimes called Authority To serve as precedent for a pending case,

a prior decision must have a similar question of law and factual situation.

Holding

Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason for the decision".

Also known as rule(s) or holding(s). Characteristics:

Rules necessary for final decisionRule without which decision would be differentRules grounded in specific factsTheory used to make decision based on specific facts.

How Do I Find the Holding?

Look for the rule(s) of law used by the court to come to it's decision(s).

The rule must be necessary for the decision.the result would have been different but for the rule.

In the end, there is no real “rule” for finding the rule. It takes practice and knowledge.

What is Dictum?

Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling

which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle.

Has no value as precedent. Often hear “it is only dictum (dicta).”