Free and Accurate Law School Case Briefs
Want to ace your law school exams? Our case briefs can help!
Based on the most popular casebooks, they provide a concise breakdown of key case elements to help you navigate your readings and take better notes. By streamlining your casebook study process, our summaries can improve your outlines and increase your chances of earning top grades. Plus, you can trust that you're studying the right material for class. Start boosting your law school success with our case briefs today!
Explore the Cases Below
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc.
A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Aaron B. Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Abdouch v. Lopez
Abrams v. United States
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Aceves v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
Adams v. Lindsell
Adderley v. Florida
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital and Training School for Nurses
Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries
Alaska Packers Association v. Domenico
Alden v. Maine
Alexander v. United States
ALH Holding Company v. Bank of Telluride
Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank
Allen v. Allen
Allen v. Bissinger & Co.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Allied Steel and Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc.
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
American Life Insurance Co. v. Stewart
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan
American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court
Ammerman v. City Stores Co.
Anderson v. Bessemer City
Anderson v. Zamir
Andrews v. United Airlines
Angel v. Murray
Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
Arizona v. United States
Arkansas Educational Television Commission. v. Forbes
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
Arnstein v. Porter
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (II)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
Atkins v. Virginia
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States
Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Austin Instrument v. Loral Corp.
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes
Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.
B (A Minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias
Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku
Bailey v. Commonwealth
Bailey v. West
Bains LLC v. Arco Products Co.
Baker v. Weedon
Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman
Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw
Banks v. City of Emeryville
Barber v. Page
Barber v. Superior Court
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
Bartnicki v. Vopper
Bartus v. Riccardi
Batsakis v. Demotsis
Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow
Bayway Refining Co. v. Oxygenated Marketing and Trading A.G.
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
Beauharnais v. Illinois
Beaver v. Brumlow
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp.
Bel-Ray Co. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.
Bellotti v. Baird
Bennett v. Stanley
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
Berg v. Wiley
Berkovitz v. United States
Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.
Berryman v. Kmoch
Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp.
Bibb, Director, Dept. of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Bird v. Holbrook
Bird v. Jones
Blake v. State
Blake v. United States
Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
Blossom Farm Products Co. v. Kasson Cheese Co., Inc.
Blumenthal v. Drudge
Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Bassett
Board of Regents v. Roth
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping and Construction Co.
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Boos v. Barry
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
Boring v. Google, Inc.
Boro v. Superior Court
Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center
Boumediene v. Bush
Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc.
Bove v. Community Hotel Corporation of Newport, R.I.
Bowling v. Heil Co.
Bowling v. Sperry
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC
Brady v. United States
Brandt Trust v. United States
Branzburg v. Hayes
Braverman v. United States
Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.
Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc.
Bridges v. Hawkesworth
Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
Britton v. Turner
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson
Brown Machine Inc. v. Hercules Inc.
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Collins
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Brown v. Gobble
Brown v. Kendall
Brown v. Martinez
Brown v. Shyne
Brown v. USA Taekwondo
Brown v. Voss
Brunson Communications, Inc. v. Arbitron, Inc.
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
Buckley v. Valeo
Buffaloe v. Hart
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Burnham v. Superior Court
Burns v. Town of Palm Beach
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Bush v. Gore
Bushey v. United States
Bustop v. Superior Court
Butterfield v. Forrester
By-Lo Oil Co., Inc. v. ParTech, Inc.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Byrne v. Boadle
C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown
C.R. Klewin, Inc. v. Flagship Properties, Inc.
CA, Inc. v. AFSCME Employees Pension Plan
Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc.
Cain v. George
Calder v. Jones
California v. Acevedo
Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp.
Cameron v. Osler and Waste Connections of South Dakota, Inc.
Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz
Campo v. Scofield
Canterbury v. Spence
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
Carvalho v. Decorative Fabrics Co.
Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
Castano v. American Tobacco Co.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
Catholic Diocese of El Paso v. Porter
Catron v. Lewis
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
Central Ceilings, Inc. v. National Amusements, Inc.
Cerrato v. Nutribullet, LLC
Champion v. Ames
Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc.
Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Channel Home Centers v. Grossman
Charbonneau v. MacRury
Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessa Co.
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry
Cheek v. United States
Chemical Bank v. Rinden Professional Association
Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey
Chiquita International Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer
Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160
Christian v. Mattel, Inc.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
City of Mobile v. Bolden
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
Clark v. Arizona
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
Clinton v. City of New York
Clinton v. Jones
Clodgo v. Rentavision, Inc.
Coblyn v. Kennedy’s, Inc.
Cohen v. California
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
Coker v. Georgia
Cole v. Turner
Colfax Envelope Corp. v. Local No. 458-3M
Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co.
Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co.
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
Commerce Partnership 8098 Limited Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co.
Commonwealth v. Azim
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz
Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment & Loan
Commonwealth v. Koczwara
Commonwealth v. Lopez
Commonwealth v. Mochan
Commonwealth v. Peaslee
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas
Conley v. Gibson
Connecticut v. Doehr
Conte v. Emmons
Cook v. Coldwell Banker
Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.
Coppage v. Kansas
Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC
Corinthian Pharmaceutical Systems, Inc. v. Lederle Laboratories
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. v. Karl O. Helm Aktiengesellschaft
Cotnam v. Wisdom
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
Courvoisier v. Raymond
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
Cramer v. Starr
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Crawford v. Washington
Creasy v. Rusk
Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. v. Russell N. Pelo
Crisci v. Security Insurance Co.
Crumpton v. Humana, Inc.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Cullison v. Medley
Cundick v. Broadbent
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
Curtis v. Loether
Curto v. A Country Place Condominium Association
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata Systems Development, Inc.
Complete Guide to Case Briefs
Law students use case briefings to prepare for lectures, readings, exams, and the natural world of practice. Students adopting the Socratic or "case method" of instruction will find this particularly useful.
The case method is frequently used in first-year law classes instead of lecturing students on the law. They instead use in-depth questions on the reading to spark discussion amongst the class. The questions are meant to help students develop their capacity for critical reading and analysis and their grasp of the subject matter.
Although it may be nerve-wracking to have a professor call on you to "recite" material about a case, the case teaching method promotes more in-depth preparation for class. In addition, it helps students hone their oral presentation skills. Self-education in new areas of law is essential, as is the ability to answer challenging inquiries from judges and superiors confidently. Your classes and other law school activities will be the initial training grounds for developing these abilities.
What is Case Briefing?
The term "briefing" refers to extracting the most relevant parts of a judicial ruling and writing them up in a concise summary for use in courses that employ the case method of instruction.
There is more than one benefit to putting together these summaries in writing.
- First, you'll need to be an avid and critical reader for your briefing. Briefing the case requires carefully reading the court's ruling and identifying key points and supporting details. To be helpful, case briefs need to include just the right amount of detail without overwhelming the reader. Choosing what to include and in what depth can be challenging and time-consuming at first, but it helps you develop skills and judgment that will serve you well later.
- Second, you can anticipate your teacher's inquiries with the information provided in the briefing. After briefing a case, you will have a deeper comprehension and retention of the subject, and you will have your case summary available for future reference. The questions posed by your professor will test your knowledge of the case at hand and your speculations about the precedent it may set. The doctrine of stare decisis states that courts must make conclusions in light of earlier rulings. Predicting when a case will supply the rule for future disputes is a crucial part of case analysis and briefing and an important part of a lawyer's job. This will depend on whether or not the new case shares any crucial similarities with the old one.
- Third, course outlines, which are crucial in preparation for a law school exam, are built from the raw information provided by case briefs. Effective case analysis requires knowing how a case works on the inside, comparing that case to a new situation with similar facts to see if it will provide the rule for the new situation, synthesizing multiple cases to get a unified, coherent, and possibly complex set of rules in an area of law, and applying the unified rules to new facts to predict an outcome.
Therefore, case briefs are a valuable teaching resource. However, professors typically do not require students to submit the case briefs they have students write as part of their preparation for class.
How to Write a Case Brief?
Even though there is some variance in how students (and lawyers) draft case briefs, the following sections are usual, after identifying information for the individual sections, you should assess the links between them.
Citations
References to cases are "citations" and are short summaries of information found in secondary legal sources. Later in the year, you'll learn the correct citation format, but for now, be sure to include the following in your case briefs: Basic publication information, such as the case reporter volume, reporter abbreviation, and first-page number of the opinion (e.g., 889 N.E.2d141), the court that decided the case (e.g., Ohio App.), and the year it was decided.
Name of the Parties
The name of the case (typically the last names of the opposing parties, e.g., Cole v. Turer).
Facts of the Case
Include who filed suit against whom and under what legal basis in the preceding section. In addition, include the outcome of the case, any appeals, and any notable procedural developments that occurred in the lower court(s).
Focus on the essential facts that determined the verdict. Next, you must determine which pieces of evidence the court relied upon most heavily. Factors in the case, party attributes, and the dispute's procedure are all examples of what could fall under this category. After reading the whole opinion, rather than as you go along, it is frequently easier to determine which facts are crucial.
A fact contributing to the outcome will remain relevant in similar situations. You can better evaluate the decision's implications for similar situations in the future if you isolate the relevant facts. For example, suppose the presence of a given set of circumstances in a future case makes applying a particular set of legal rules or consequences likely. In that case, you should be able to anticipate the rulings of the new court. Furthermore, you must know which facts entail the various principles studied throughout the semester to succeed on law school tests that consist of hypothetical fact situations.
Be specific enough in your summary of the major information to serve as a reminder to yourself later, but don't get bogged down in the weeds to the point that you lose sight of the forest for the trees. In making their decisions, courts frequently provide context-setting or otherwise fascinating or odd elements that aren't always important to the case.
Issue(s)
Pinpoint the precise area of law at issue. For example, most published opinions are those of the courts of appeal; hence, the matter will likely involve correcting a mistake made by the lower court.
The court will often indicate the issue it is weighing. Nonetheless, it is important to compare the court's interpretation of the issue with the rest of the ruling. For example, you may find that the court's formulation of the issue is too broad, too narrow, or too particular for your needs. Therefore, each issue that the court considered should be briefed independently.
Your issue needs to avoid being either too broad or too narrow. Many argue that the holding constitutes the issue at hand and that if you pin down the holding first, you'll have a much easier time formulating your issue statement.
Holding
This case's holding should not only declare the outcome of the disagreement but also explain how that outcome contributes to the existing body of law in the field. To avoid cluttering the canon with unimportant rulings, courts should only publish those that significantly alter the status quo or apply settled law to novel situations. Take into account the new "case rule."
The challenge of deciding how broadly or narrowly to articulate the holding arises. Because the new rule will appear to apply to many instances, the relevance of the case may be overstated if it is framed in very general language. On the other hand, if the decision is framed in a way that makes it seem to apply to situations with identical or somewhat similar facts, its future relevance may be understated.
Reasoning
Summarize how and why the court reached its verdict. Explain the court's reasoning for its ruling and how it applied the law to the case's specifics. In addition, outline any policy concerns (such as those underlying the existing rules, the broader domain of law, or even greater social principles) on which the court relied, whether directly or implicitly.
As you compose this part, remember that case briefing has a specific purpose. Take care to detail the parts of the court's analysis that will help you determine if the same rationale and underlying policy concerns would apply to a new set of facts, even if it's been three months since you first read the case. Consider how different the circumstances would need to be for the same conclusion to be true in a fresh scenario.
Concurrences and Dissents
All opinions in the casebook, both in agreement and disagreement, should be addressed in your brief. It is important to keep your summary concise, as concurrences and dissents in casebook opinions are typically much shorter than the majority opinion. Explain in great detail why the court mandated a second writing task.