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
Dalton v. Educational Testing Service
Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd.
Daly v. General Motors Corp.
Daniels v. Evans
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Davis v. Davis
Davis v. Jacoby
Davis v. Washington
De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
Debs v. United States
Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc.
Delfino v. Vealencis
Dennis v. United States
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services
Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co.
Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose
Detroit Will Breathe v. City of Detroit
DeWeerth v. Baldinger
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co.
Dickinson v. Dodds
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.
Dillon v. Legg
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan
Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Dixon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
Dodson v. Shrader
Doe a/k/a Twist v. TCI Cablevision
Doe v. Great Expectations
Doomes v. Best Transit Corp.
Dorton v. Collins & Aikman Corp.
Dougherty v. Salt
Dougherty v. Stepp
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
Dugger v. Arredondo
Duncan v. Louisiana
Durre v. Wilkinson Development, Inc.
Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc.
Dyer v. National By-Products Inc.
E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones
E.C. Styberg Engineering Co. v. Eaton Corp.
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corporation
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.
Edwards v. Sims
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eldridge v. Johndrow
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Elonis v. United States
Elsinore Union Elementary School District v. Kastorff
Ely-Norris Safe Co. v. Mosler Safe Co.
Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.
Empro Manufacturing Co. v. Ball-Co Manufacturing, Inc.
Erie R. Co. v. Stewart
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Ernst v. Conditt
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz
Estate of Kievernagel
Evans v. Jeff D.
Evans v. Newton
Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
Ewing v. California
Ex Parte Mccardle
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.
Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc.
Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware
Fairview Park Excavating Co. v. Al Monzo Construction Co.
Fauntleroy v. Lum
Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.
Feiner v. New York
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service
Feldman v. Google, Inc.
Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc.
Ferens v. John Deere Co.
Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
Fiege v. Boehm
Figgie International v. Destileria Serralles
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc
Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.
Fisher v. The State
Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II)
Fletcher v. Rylands
Florence v. Lilly Transportation Corp.
Florida Star v. B.J.F.
Foley v. Connelie
Folsom v. Rowell
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
Francis v. United Jersey Bank
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
Frier v. City of Vandalia
Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Fuentes v. Shevin
Furman v. Georgia
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
Garcia v. State
Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Garnett v. State
Garratt v. Dailey
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
Gauerke v. Rozga
Gebardi v. United States
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
Genie Industries, Inc. v. Matak
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
Getchell v. Lodge
Ghen v. Rich
Gianni v. R. Russell & Co.
Gibbons v. Brown
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gideon v. Wainwright
Girouard v. State
Gitlow v. New York
Gleason v. Guzman
Goddard v. Winchell
Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B.
Goldwater v. Carter
Gomez v. Toledo
Gonzales v. Raich
Gooding v. Wilson
Goodman v. State
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
Gordon v. Steele
Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.
Gordon v. United States
Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.
Goss v. Lopez
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
Graham v. Florida
Graham v. Graham
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.
Graham v. United States
Gratz v. Bollinger
Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
Gregg v. Georgia
Grigerik v. Sharpe
Grimes v. Saban
Grimstad v. New York Central Railroad Co.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Groves v. John Wunder Co.
Gruen v. Gruen
Grutter v. Bollinger
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
Gunn v. Minton
H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Haddle v. Garrison
Hadley v. Baxendale
Hajdusek v. United States
Halliday v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Hamer v. Sidway
Hammontree v. Jenner
Hanna v. Plumer
Hannan v. Dusch
Hansberry v. Lee
Hanson v. Denckla
Harmelin v. Michigan
Harms v. Sprague
Harnish v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Harper v. Paradise
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
Harris v. Balk
Harris v. Board of Education of Howard County
Harris v. Brooks
Harry Stoller & Co. v. City of Lowell
Harvey v. Dow
Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma
Hawkins v. Mahoney
Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc.
Hawkins v. McGee
Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound
Hertz Corp. v. Friend
Herzog v. Irace
Hess v. Pawloski
Hickey v. Green
Hickman v. Taylor
Hicks v. Bush
Hicks v. United States
Hilder v. St. Peter
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc.
Hill v. Jones
Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc.
Hines v. State
Hinman v. Westinghouse
Hochster v. De la Tour
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Hood v. Ryobi America Corp.
Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic
Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Horne v. Harbour Portfolio
Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co.
Houchins v. KQED
Howard Schultz & Associates v. Broniec
Howard v. Kunto
Howe v. Palmer
Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board
Hufstetler v. State
Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc.
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
Hurley v. Eddingfield
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Iannelli v. United States
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation
In re Atlantic Pipe Corp.
In re Devon T.
In re Fulton
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller
In re Greene
In re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
In re Meagan R.
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
In re Winship
In the Matter of Baby M
Indiana Consolidated Insurance Co. v. Mathew
Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co.
Ink v. City of Canton
INS v. Chadha
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.