Every branch of law has an established hornbook that is the most highly regarded in the field e. This is the hornbook you should buy, and it can be found by asking around or using the internet.
There are three steps in rule extraction. Identify the rule in case law.
State the rule in your own words and list each element that needs to be proven. State the public policy behind the rule. Look for a declarative sentence that addresses the issue the court is trying to resolve.
Some language that identifies the rule: There are two situations that give first year students difficulty. In the first situation, the judge doesn't explicitly state the rule. In the second situation, the judge gives so many different rules that it's hard to know which rule applies.
In this second situation, the judge often traces the development of rule from the common law and talks at length about how other jurisdictions differ in the application of the rule. The solution in either situation is to ferret out the rule as implied by the holding.
You identify the rule by looking at how the court resolves the issue. You generalize and form a rule that takes into account the facts of the case by making an inference from the holding of the case. Two dogs were fighting, and a man tries to separate the dogs with a stick.
He is seriously hurt in the process and sues the owner of the dogs for negligence. The court rules that "no reasonable person in those circumstances would have assumed the risk of separating the dogs without knowing that he might be hurt. Thus the owner of the dogs is not liable.
The court has not stated a rule but has given you a holding or judgment of the case. You can infer several principles from that holding.
Such cases are judged by the following principles: Most students just copy the rule from the casebook verbatim into their notes. The more astute student restates the rule in her own words in order to get a clearer sense of what has to be proven in order to apply the rule.
Stating the rule is a two-part process. Restate the rule in your own words in order to clarify that you understand it and remember it better. As with any course of study or in any form of communication, when you restate what someone else has said in your own words, you are making sure that you understand the nuances of everything they have said.
In a way, you are creating your own mini-Restatement of the law in the words of a 21st century lawyer. You can then compare what you have said with the case law to see whether you have understood all of the elements correctly. Break the rule into elements that must be satisfied in order for the rule to apply.
Formatting the Rule When breaking the rule into elements, put each element on a separate line. This helps you to visually absorb the rule.
For some people, this type of formatting appears awkward and interferes with learning the law. They prefer to see the rule written out as a sentence.
If you do write the rule as a sentence then be sure to highlight the elements by underlining or italicizing the key elements. I prefer to take rule extraction a step further. I use a computer programming approach and break the rule into its logical components in order to see the flow.
The old computer programming language BASIC uses logical commands to construct rules that the program would then follow. In the same way, you can program legal rules into a neat sequence of logical statements that are constructed as IF-THEN statements.The DHS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms (DAAT) list contains homeland security related acronyms, abbreviations, and terms that can be found in DHS documents, reports, and the FEMA Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms (FAAT) list.
c. BC: Herodotus, The Histories, First historical reference clearly denoting a wider region than biblical Philistia, referring to a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" (Book 3): "The country reaching from the city of Posideium to the borders of Egypt paid a tribute of three hundred and fifty vilakamelia.com Phoenicia, Palestine Syria, and Cyprus, were herein contained.
The Performance Tests (PTs) are like a scary haunted house. It’s frightening at first, but once you suck up the courage and go in, you come out the other side with candy and a .
not only discuss the case, but to compare and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue. Before attempting to “brief” a case, read the case at least once. Follow the “IRAC” method in briefing cases: Facts* Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be.
Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court’s analysis. A candid and pragmatic guide to doing well in law school and getting excellent grades while allowing you time for other interests.
A candid and pragmatic guide to doing well in law school and getting excellent grades while allowing you time for other interests.