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
Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co.
Ink v. City of Canton
INS v. Chadha
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
Intel Corporation v. Hamidi
Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. River Brand Rice Mills, Inc.
International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice & Light Co.
International News Service v. Associated Press
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
Ison v. Thomas
Izadi v. Machado Ford, Inc.
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
J.N.A. Realty Corp v. Cross Bay Chelsea Inc.
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Jacobs v. CBS Broadcasting
Jacobson v. United States
Jaffee v. Redmond
James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros. Inc.
Jeffries v. State
Johnson v. Davis
Johnson v. McIntosh
Jones v. Bock
Jones v. Flowers
Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
Jones v. Star Credit Corp.
Jones v. United States
Jowers v. BOC Group
Joyner v. Adams
K & G Construction Co. v. Harris
Kahler v. Kansas
Kalinauskas v. Wong
Kannavos v. Annino
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.
Katko v. Briney
Katz v. Danny Dare, Inc.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
Keeler v. Superior Court
Keller Logistics Group, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc.
Kelo v. City of New London
Kemezy v. Peters
Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.
Kenford Co. v. County of Erie
Kennedy v. Cannon
Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh
Kerr v. United States District Court
Kiefer v. Fred Howe Motors, Inc.
Kilgore v. State
King v. Trustees of Boston University
Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
Kingston v. Preston
Kirkland v. Archbold
Kirksey v. Kirksey
Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.
Klocek v. Gateway
Knitz v. Minster Machine Co.
Knopf v. Gray
Koken v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Kothe v. Smith
Kotteakos v. United States
Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.
Kuntz v. Thirteenth Judicial District Court
La Salle National Bank v. Vega
Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.
Laidlaw v. Organ
Lake Land Employment Group of Akron v. Columber
Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.
Lama v. Borras
Lambert v. California
Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co.
Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co.
Laney v. Vance
Langer v. Superior Steel Corp
Langlois v. Town of Proctor
Langman v. Alumni Association of the University of Virginia
Laredo Hides Co. v. H & H Meat Products Co.
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser
Lawrence v. Fox
Lawrence v. Texas
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
Lee v. State
Lee v. Weisman
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights
Lemoge v. United States
Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
LeRoy Fibre Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway
Levine v. Blumenthal
Levy v. Kosher Overseers Association of America, Inc.
Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corporation
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel
Licari v. Elliott
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
Lind v. Schenley Industries Inc.
Linegar v. Armour of America, Inc.
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
Livingstone v. Evans
Lochner v. New York
Locke v. Davey
Locke v. Warner Bros. Inc.
Lohmeyer v. Bower
Lonergan v. Scolnick
Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Loving v. Virginia
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Lucy v. Zehmer
Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School v. Geoghegan
Lumley v. Gye
Lumley v. Wagner
Lund v. Commonwealth
Luthi v. Evans
Luttinger v. Rosen
Lyons v. Midnight Sun Transportation Services, Inc.
M.L.B. v. S.L.J.
M’Naghten’s Case
MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
Maffe v. Loranger
Maher v. People
Maher v. Roe
Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees
Major v. State
Malone v. Brincat
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Mannillo v. Gorski
Mapp v. Ohio
Marbury v. Madison
Marchiondo v. Scheck
Marcus v. Staubs
Market Street Associates Limited Partnership v. Frey
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
Marquay v. Eno
Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Marshall Durbin Food Corp. v. Bill W. Baker
Marshall v. Nugent and Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
Martin v. Herzog
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Martin v. Peyton
Martin v. State
Martin v. United States
Martin v. Wilks
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby
Mas v. Perry
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc.
Mattei v. Hopper
Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association
Mattox v. United States
Mavrikidis v. Petullo
Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.
McAvoy v. Medina
McBoyle v. United States
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D’Agostino, S.P.A.
McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
McCarthy v. Olin Corporation
McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation
McCleskey v. Kemp
McCloskey & Co. v. Minweld Steel Co.
McCormick v. Kopmann
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky
McCullen v. Coakley
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde
McDougald v. Garber
McElhaney v. Thomas
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
McGuire v. Almy
McIntosh v. Murphy
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Mckesson v. Doe
McKinnon v. Benedict
McQuirter v. State
Meinhard v. Salmon
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson et al.
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
Michelson v. United States
Michigan v. Bryant
Midgett v. State
Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association
Milliken v. Bradley
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.
Mills v. Wyman
Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard
Minnich v. Med-Waste, Inc.
Miranda v. Arizona
Mitchell v. Rochester Railway
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
Mohr v. Grantham
Monarco v. Lo Greco
Monfore v. Phillips
Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc.
Montgomery v. National Convoy Trucking Co.
Moore v. Baker
Moore v. Hartley Motors, Inc.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Moorman Manufacturing Company v. National Tank Company
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
Morissette v. United States
Morris v. Sparrow
Mosler Safe Co. v. Ely-Norris Safe Co.
Mosley v. General Motors Corp.
Mueller v. Swift
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Mund v. English
Murphy v. Financial Development Corp.
Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.
Muscarello v. United States
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon
Myers v. United States
Nader v. General Motors Corp.
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Ass’n
Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co.
Navarro v. Block
NBA v. Motorola
Neel v. Sewell
Nelson v. State
Nelson v. United States
Neponsit Property Owners’ Association v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
Neri v. Retail Marine Corp.
New England Structures, Inc. v. Loranger
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York v. Quarles
Newell v. State
Newman v. Bost
Newsome v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Nolan v. State
Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom
Norcon Power Partners v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Norcon v. Kotowski
Normile v. Miller
Northern Delaware Industrial Development Corp. v. E.W. Bliss Co.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co.
Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment
Nuttall v. Reading Company
O’Banner v. McDonald’s Corp.
O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.
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.