|
Case Briefing Basics
Go to a printer-friendly copy of this page.
Active Process • P-FIRAC • Procedure • Facts •
Issue • Rule • Application/Analysis • Conclusion/Holding
Briefing a case is writing your own summary of a case that you have read. Case briefing helps you understand how courts and lawyers analyze a given fact pattern in light of rules of law and the policies behind those rules. Case briefing allows you to read a case effectively so that you can use your knowledge effectively in class, in written material such as client memos and appellate briefs, and on exams.
The process of case briefing pays more dividends than the end product. Writing out your own case briefs helps you practice what lawyers do. Briefing cases helps you read cases effectively, efficiently, and with understanding.
Case briefing is an active process.
Don’t be content with copying or regurgitating the court’s words. Ask yourself what happened in the case, then put that understanding into your own words by writing in a manner that makes sense to you.
Your case briefing should reflect a basic understanding of the following common elements:
• How this case came before this court (procedure)
• What facts gave rise to this dispute (facts)
• What this dispute is about (issue)
• What pre-existing rule of law governs this dispute (rule)
• How and why the court applied the pre-existing rule to the facts
of this case (application/analysis)
• What conclusion the court came to (conclusion/holding)
P-FIRAC: A Basic Case Briefing Formula
P-FIRAC is a basic case briefing formula which you can adapt to any class. It gives you the basic elements of Procedure - Facts - Issue - Rule - Application/Analysis - Conclusion/Holding,
P - Procedure
Procedure includes information such as:
-
The court and date,
-
The names, legal relationship, and legal status of the parties at the trial and appellate levels,
-
The legal theory under which the case is brought or defended,
-
The remedy sought,
-
The legal proceedings and remedy in the lower court(s), and how proceedings got to this court,
-
This court’s disposition of the case.
Example:
Idaho Supreme Ct, 2005.
Strunk, seller, plaintiff, respondent v. White, buyer, defendant, appellant.
Strunk sues White for breach of K and expectation damages. White, no consideration.
Jury trial. Verdict for Strunk, $100K. White appeals (jury instructions); Ct App. affirms. White petitions for review.
Reversed, remanded to dist ct.
F - Facts
What facts give rise to the dispute? Include the facts essential to the story such as names, dates, and acts, plus all other facts that make a difference—that is, what facts if changed might lead to a different result.
Phoebe owns apartment in college town. Dorcas signs 1-yr lease starting Aug. 1. Dorcas tries to move in Aug. 1 but former tenant Tristan still in apartment. Dorcas complains but Phoebe won’t kick Tristan out. Dorcas finally rents apartment from another landlord Aug. 15. Tristan moves out Aug. 20. Phoebe does not try to rent out apartment but bills Dorcas rent for all of August and all remaining months on lease.
I - Issue
What is the disagreement implicated by the facts? Make your issue statement as specific as possible to the particular dispute. The issue asks how a legal doctrine relates to the specific facts of the case.
Did Donella breach the general standard of care in negligence when she ran through a crowded subway station during rush hour and tripped Pia?
Did Dimitri cause the infant Pablo’s death under the common law of murder where Dimitri failed to obtain medical care for the infant when Pablo’s fever lasted over two days?
R - Rule
What pre-existing rule does the court apply to the facts at hand? Think of the pre-existing rule as the starting point for the court’s analysis.
Sometimes you should focus on two rules: the “big-picture” rule plus the narrow rule about the specific element that decides the case.
"Big-picture" Adverse possession of real property requires that the possessor show (1) actual entry giving exclusive possession, which is (2) open and notorious, (3) adverse, hostile, or under claim of right, and (4) continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period.
Specific Element To show that possession is “continuous,” it must be the type of continuous occupation that a true owner would have, which will vary according to the nature and location of the land.
A - Application/Analysis
How did the court apply the pre-existing rule to the specific facts of the dispute? What were the steps in its reasoning? Look for arguments based on one or more of the following:
- precedent
- statutory language
- need for the decision in the facts
- logic
- fairness
- utility
- public policy
Example: Analysis based on precedent where rule is “Zoning restrictions on billboards must have narrow, objective, and definite standards”
Not met in previous Moreno Valley case, because standards were general (“no harmful effect on health or welfare”, “not detrimental to aesthetic quality of community”). Here, restrictions OK because narrowly tailored & specific (“placement will not endanger motorists”, “not cover prominent view of building of historical significance”, “compatible with building heights in existing neighborhood”).
Example: Analysis based on facts where rule is “Under the apparent authority doctrine, a warrantless search is valid where government agents reasonably believe the person consenting to the search has actual authority to consent.“
Here dist. ct. held landlord had no actual authority to consent to a police search of the rented premises. Police reliance on LL’s apparent authority to consent was reasonable under totality of circumstances. LL told police she was selling house, that tenants had vacated, and that she found suspicious items while cleaning. Police's visual inspection showed furniture, clothes, personal items had been removed from house and that the items remaining in yard & garage looked like trash. Reasonable for police to conclude that tenants had vacated and left some trash.
C - Conclusion/Holding
What conclusion did the court come to in this case? Think of the holding as the ending point of the court’s analysis, where the court decides how the pre-existing rule applies to the particular facts before it. Sometimes the holding becomes a new rule of law for subsequent cases with similar facts.
Landlord who rented a house w/ long-standing reputation as “party house” to college students, but who had received no complaints re current tenants, did not owe tenants' guests a duty of care to control tenants because the harm that a legal-age guest would die from alcohol poisoning not foreseeable.
For more class preparation tips, visit
Return to Skills for Success.
© Nancy Luebbert 2007
Last updated 2007-08-17 |