What to study in law school and how does it transform a person to think like a lawyer...
Start with a case study.. Explanation below is limited to 1 competing rule
A1 has a conflict with B2 but can't resolve the issue so A1 decided to sue B2. A1 presented the fact to his lawyer from his perspective. Then, his lawyer would research the law and looking for the rule of law (aka cause of action) when apply to the facts entitled his or her client to the relief.
For example: Rule of Law - " Adverse possession " 1) actual entry onto the land that gives rise to possession 2 ) open and notorious 3 ) exclusive
1,2,3 are the elements of a rule of law.
After finding the cause of action, the lawyer would writes it up in a document called a complaint ( or a petition or a declaration). The party filing the complaint also known as plaintiff or petitioner. B2 served with a complaint, and would presented the fact to his lawyer from his perspective. B2's lawyer would research the cause of action that the plaintiff's lawyer has asserted to see if it is applied; the lawyer also write up the defendant reply to the complaint called an answer (or response which may contain "affirmative defenses" to counter plaintiff's cause of action (s). Pre-trial is the period of time after the defendant files his or her answer and before trial.
Dispute > Complaint > Answer > __pretrial__ > Trial
During Pretrial - Depositions, Interrogatories, Requests are the forms of discovery. "Discovery is the legal process by which one party is permitted to learn the other party's version for what happened".
In addition, the parties typically file motions during pre-trial.
Pre-trial : Discovery and Motions
2 forms of motions: motion to dismiss and summary for judgment.
Motion to dismiss - requests the court to dismiss the cause of action because the facts do not satisfy the elements of the cause of action ( rule of law ) even though the facts are true.
Summary Judgment - both parties agree on the relevant facts produced during discovery. "Judge can decide whether the rule applies without the need for a trial"
In case, the dispute can't settled and is not resolved by motion, it will go to a trial.
At the trial, the plaintiff calling his witnesses to testify the facts then defendant turn. The judge instructs the jury on the law at the very end of the case, and the jury has to determine what happened factually and applies the law to the facts to reach the verdict in the case.
if either A1 or B2 is not happy with the verdict, they can authorize their attorney to appeal.
Dispute > Complaint > Answer > __pretrial__ > Trial > Appeal
The fact are determined by the trial court, so the appellate court only handle the questions of law.
In law school, students read virtually all appellate court opinion rather than trial court opinion. The court is making law if the the questions of law is a new law, a question of first impression. "Before adopt the new law,the court has to take into relevant public policy considerations. what type of society do we want and what do we value? what should be encouraged, and conversely?"
Finally, there are 3 planes : the factual, the rule, and the public policy plane
.
So, the most important plane is the rule plane because it is the core of the case. What is the A1 vs. B2 case about? The answer would be: It was about the rule of adverse possession. Second most important is the public policy plane because it answers the question why did the court adopt the rule it did. The factual plane is the least important but still has it own value. The court adopts the rule of law, it applies the rule of law to the facts of the case to reach the holding in the case; and it would occur when the the facts satisfy the elements.
The court of appeals usually have 2 different rule statements to choose from when trying to decide how to answer the question on appeal - 1 offered by the plaintiff and the other offered by the defendant.
For example: What constitutes occupancy? 1) intent to appropriate to individual use, have a reasonable prospect of capturing it. or 2) intent to appropriate to individual use, bring the animal within certain control
The appellate court has to look into relevant public policy consideration to determine which rule statement is the better one? the court will identify all the relevant public policy consideration to determine which are the most important, and the purpose of law in our society.
What constitutes occupancy?
Dissident rule: 1) intent to appropriate to individual use, have a reasonable prospect of capturing it. - public policy consideration : maximize kill of a certain animal
Majority rule: 2) intent to appropriate to individual use, bring the animal within certain control. - promote peace + certainty minimize quarrels
In this case, the court's primarily concern is what is in society's best interest while justice and fairness of a single party should not prevailed. rule #2 would prevail and be chosen to apply to the facts. If all the elements within the rule statement satisfy the facts, then the plaintiff will entitle to the relief. For example: did the person intent to appropriate to individual use? did he bring the animal within certain control? if one of the fact that he didn't have the animal within certain control because the animal still running around, then he can't establish occupancy.
In this case, there is a scope of the rule.Dissident rule is broad and can easily satisfy.. reasonable prospect of capturing it. the majority rule is narrower because bring animal within certain control (the condition is harder to satisfy as one party has to prove that he has control of the animal). "Reasonable" more softer and more fact-sensitive ( open-ended and ambiguous) compare to a bright-line rule - within certain control.
PURPOSE: A concise summary of the book for me to refresh my memory. Also for anyone interests in reading the book.
Wendel, Peter T. Deconstructing Legal Analysis: a 1L Primer. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2009. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment