Lefkowitz v great minneapolis surplus store case brief

Lefkowitz V. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

HOW TO BRIEF A CASE

THE CASE BRIEF To analyze a judicial opinion, lawyers write what is called a case brief, a summary of the important elements of a case.

In the following section, we show you how to write a brief of the first case in this book, Yania v. Bigan. The brief itself is in boldprint, followed by an explanation. Case brief writing is an excellent way for you to prepare for class.

Caption: Yania v. Bigan The “caption” names the parties to the lawsuit.

Usually the first name is that of the plaintiff (the party who brought the suit), and the second is the defendant (the party sued). However, in some jurisdictions, the names are reversed when a case is appealed by the defendant. Always read through the case itself to see who filed the lawsuit, as that will be the name of the “plaintiff.” Citation: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1959, 155 A.2d 343

The “citation” identifies the court that issued the opinion you are reading and the year the case was decided. The phrase that follows (here, 155 A.2d 343) is unique to each case and enables you to find the full, unedited judicial opinion. Throughout this text, you will find cases from many different courts, including state courts (like this one) and federal trial (“United States District Court”) and appellate courts (“United States [Circuit] Court of Appeals” or “United States Supreme Court”). The higher the court, the more important the precedent.

Facts: 1. Coal miner and landowner Bigan cut large trenches into his property to remove coal. 2. One cut contained 8–10 feet of water and a pump to remove the water, and it had side walls 16–18 feet. 3. Another coal miner, Yania, was on Bigan's property to discuss business. Yania was a mentally competent adult. Bigan stood near the pump and used words to “taunt and entice” Yania into jumping from the side wall of a trench. 4. Yania fell into the water and drowned. Bigan made no attempt to rescue him.

Think of the “facts” of the case as everything important that happened before there was a lawsuit. Sometimes, in reality, the facts are “disputed”—that is, the parties disagree about what happened. But for purposes of a case brief, the “facts” are whatever the court determines the facts to have been. In this case, we know only what the widow claims to have happened—and the judge accepts her version as true. Your brief should also include facts gleaned from any concurring or dissenting opinions, and those introduced by the authors of your text.

Legal History/Procedure: 1. Yania's widow filed a suit (“complaint”) against Bigan. 2. Bigan made a motion to dismiss. 3. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss. 4. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the dismissal.

The legal history/procedure part of a case brief begins with the lawsuit—who sued whom for what—and ends with the ruling in the case you are briefing.

Sometimes, before there is a trial, the judge will rule on what are called “pretrial motions.” In Yania for example, the defendant made a pretrial motion to dismiss the complaint, and the judge granted the motion (ruling, in other words, that there should be no trial). The plaintiff appealed that decision, arguing that he should have had a trial. Here, the appellate court (the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania) disagreed, and “affirmed” the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the case. Had the court instead agreed with Yania's widow, the case would have been “reversed” and “remanded”—sent back to a judge for a trial.

Civil law is law that does not involve a criminal charge. In the civil context—and all of the cases in this book are civil cases—the purpose of a trial is to settle disputes. In other words, a trial is a fact-finding process, a way to determine the most credible version of “what really happened” and the fairest way to apply the law to those facts. If the facts are not contested, a judge applies the appropriate law and renders a judgment for one side or the other without a trial. This is called a summary judgment. In either case, the losing party has a right to appeal judicial “errors of law” (e.g. erroneous evidentiary rulings or improper jury instructions.) Once the facts have been determined at a trial, however, they will not be revisited on appeal.

If there was a trial in the case you are briefing, the legal history should include the outcome of the trial (e.g., “The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages.”) and any post-trial motions (e.g., “The trial judge overturned the jury and entered a judgment for the defendant.”), as well as any rulings by the appellate courts (affirming or reversing the trial court).

Legal procedure can be quite complex, and some cases go on for years. In this text, we have tried to simplify the procedure wherever possible, so you will not always see all of the steps in the case's legal history. However, you should always be able to figure out—either from the case itself or surrounding text—who sued whom for what, and who won.

Issues (Holdings): 1. Did Bigan “cause” Yania's death by convincing him to jump? (No) Or: Can a person legally “cause” another adult with full mental capacity to do something, by words alone? (No) 2. Did Bigan have a “duty to warn” Yania of the dangers of jumping into the cut that was violated by “failing to warn”? (No) or: Does a landowner have a “duty to warn” a person of a known danger on his property? (No) 3. Did Bigan have a “duty to rescue” Yania from drowning? (No) or: Does a landowner have a “duty to rescue” a drowning business associate on his property who voluntarily put himself in danger? (No)

Think of the “issues” in a case as the questions of law that the judge must resolve in order to determine who should win. There are many ways to frame an issue, and you will want to practice writing both a narrow issue and a broader one. The “holding” of the case is really the answer to the question, and if you write your issues as questions that require a “yes” or “no” answer, your holdings will be easy to write. It will also make it easier for you to identify the “rule of law” that grows from the case. As you read, watch for language in the case that signals an issue (“Before us today …,” “At issue …,” or “The question to be determined …”) or a holding (“Today we hold …” or “The court finds …”).

Reasoning:

Bigan is not responsible unless he “caused” Yania to drown. Bigan did not push or touch Yania; all he did was talk. Yania was an adult, of full mental capacity, and he freely chose to jump. The court finds “no merit” in the argument that it was Bigan's fault. 2. A landowner has no duty to warn of danger that is open (“not concealed”) and obvious. Here, the danger was obvious to Yania, another coalminer. 3. There is a moral duty to rescue, but not a legal one. Bigan did nothing to cause Yania's situation—Yania brought it on himself. It would be different if Bigan had caused Yania to be at risk, but he did not. Therefore he violated no duty by failing to rescue Yania.

The “reasoning” section spells out the rationale that explains the “holdings” of the court. Reasoning can be based on logic, as in the edited version of Yania v. Bigan in this text, or on: • An interpretation of the U.S. Constitution or one of its amendments.

• An interpretation of a statute (act) passed by Congress or a state legislature. • The application of the precedent set by a prior, similar case (the name of the case will sometimes be omitted). The judge may choose to: (a) follow the precedent; (b) distinguish it (by deciding it is not similar enough to the case at hand); or (c) overturn it based on the unexpected consequences of the prior rulings or on changes in the business and social reality. • Where there is no applicable statute or precedent (“a case of first impression”), the court will need to consider political, economic, and business implications; social policy; justice; ethical or moral concerns; and basic fairness or equity. • References to precedents from other state courts or even international law. • Commentators (lawyers, scholars, or other authorities) and Social science studies and literature.

Reasoning of the Dissent: (none in Yania) When a case is appealed, it is always heard by a panel of appellate judges (three or more, nine on the Supreme Court) who must determine by a vote whether to affirm or reverse the lower court. When your text includes a concurring or dissenting opinion, outline the reasoning of those opinions as well. Remember, though, that the dissenting opinion does not set a precedent and is not considered the “law of the case.”

Rule of Law: The “rule of law” refers to the precedent set by the case.

Your Response: For your own purposes, and to prepare for class discussion, you might want to include your own reflections on the reasoning and implicaitons of the decision.