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
O’Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc.
O’Guin v. Bingham County
O’Keeffe v. Snyder
O’Shea v. Riverway Towing Co.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District
Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc.
Ohio v. Scott
Ollerman v. O’Rourke Co., Inc.
Olmstead v. United States
Omni Capital International v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.
Omni Group, Inc. v. Seattle-First National Bank
Omotosho v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
Orr v. Byers
Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Board
Osborne v. McMasters
Othen v. Rosier
Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Co.
Owen v. Tunison
Owens v. State
Oxendine v. State
PA Northwestern Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.
Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Insurance Co.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Incorporated
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank
Patterson v. New York
Paul Gottlieb v. Alps South Corp.
Paul Smith’s College of Arts & Sciences v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Ogdensburg
Payne v. Tennessee
Payton v. New York
Peacock Construction Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc.
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc.
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal Mining Co.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
Pennoyer v. Neff
Pennsy Supply v. American Ash
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Penry v. Lynaugh
People Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
People v. Anderson
People v. Beardsley
People v. Brown
People v. Casassa
People v. Chun
People v. Conley
People v. Currie
People v. Davis
People v. Decina
People v. Eulo
People v. Fuller
People v. Garcia
People v. Genoa
People v. Gentry
People v. Goetz
People v. Ingram
People v. Knoller
People v. Lauria
People v. Marrero
People v. McCoy & Lakey
People v. Meredith
People v. Navarro
People v. Newton
People v. Rideout
People v. Rizzo
People v. Smith
People v. Swain
People v. Thousand
People v. Unger
People v. Whight
People v. Zackowitz
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center
Peterson v. Wilson
Petrocelli v. Gallison
Petterson v. Pattberg
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
Pierson v. Post
Pinkerton v. United States
Pinnick v. Cleary
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
Pipher v. Parsell
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Brookhaven Manor Water Co.
Plante v. Jacobs
Plessy v. Ferguson
Ploof v. Putnam
Plowman v. Indian Refining Co.
Pocono Springs Civic Ass’n v. MacKenzie
Podias v. Mairs
Poggi v. Scott
Pohl v. County of Furnas
Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.
Posas v. Horton
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Powell v. Texas
Prah v. Maretti
Prasad v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC
Price v. CTB, Inc.
Princess Cruises v. General Electric
Printz v. United States
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
Purcell v. United States
Pusey v. Bator
Quake Construction v. American Airlines
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
R v Brown
R v Woollin
R. v R
Raffles v. Wichelhaus
Ragosta v. Wilder
Ramos v. Estrada
Rathke v. Corrections Corp. of America
Ratzlaf v. United States
Rauch v. RCA Corporation
Ray v. William G. Eurice & Bros., Inc.
Re Arbitration: Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.
Redner v. Sanders
Regina v. Blaue
Regina v. Cunningham
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
Regina v. Faulkner
Regina v. Prince
Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co.
Remy v. MacDonald
Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.
Renner v. Kehl
Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc.
Rex v. Bazeley
Rhode Island v. Innis
Richard v. Richard
Ricketts v. Scothorn
Ricketts v. State
Riddle v. Harmon
Right v. Breen
Riley v. State
Riss v. City of New York
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna
River Heights Ass’n v. Batten
Roberts v. United States Jaycees
Robinson v. California
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
Roe v. Wade
Roper v. Simmons
Rosengrant v. Rosengrant
Rowland v. Christian
Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC
Rusk v. State
Ryan v. New York Central R.R.
Sackett v. Spindler
Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.
Sally Beauty Co. v. Nexxus Products Co.
Sanborn v. McLean
Sandstrom v. Montana
Santiago v. First Student, Inc.
Sawada v. Endo
Saylor v. Lindsley
Schechter v. Klanfer
Schmitz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Scott v. Cingular Wireless
Scott v. Harris
Scott v. Shepherd
Seaver v. Ransom
Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories
Seiler v. Lucasfilm
Selland Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. King
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Shadis v. Beal
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Shaffer v. Heitner
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions
Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc.
Shelley v. Kraemer
Shepard Claims Service, Inc. v. William Darrah & Associates
Sherwood v. Walker
Shull v. Reid
Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp.
Simblest v. Maynard
Simeone v. Simeone
Simmons v. Porter
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout
Sisney v. Reisch
Sisney v. State
Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association
Slade’s Case
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell
Sommer v. Kridel
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel
Southern California Gas Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Southworth v. Oliver
Spano v. Perini Corp.
Speakers of Sport Inc. v. ProServ Inc.
Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.
Speller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Spiller v. Mackereth
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.
Spurlin v. General Motors Corp.
St. Ansgar Mills, Inc. v. Streit
Staats v. County of Sawyer
Stambovsky v. Ackley
Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
Staples v. United States
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
State in the Interest of M.T.S.
State v. Alston
State v. Anderson
State v. Batangan
State v. Beaudry
State v. Beeley
State v. Boyett
State v. Chapple
State v. Christy Pontiac-GMC, Inc.
State v. Cotton
State v. Elmi
State v. Formella
State v. Forrest
State v. Giminski
State v. Gordon
State v. Guthrie
State v. Harrington
State v. Helmenstein
State v. Herndon
State v. Hoselton
State v. Johnson
State v. Kirsch
State v. Linscott
State v. Mann
State v. Moore
State v. Motta
State v. Norman
State v. Ragland
State v. Reeves
State v. Rocker
State v. Rose
State v. Shack
State v. Smith
State v. Thompson
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.