USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
To fully understand the law with respect to business, you need to be able to read and understand court decisions. To make this task easier, students use a method of case analysis that is called briefing. There is a fairly standard procedure that you can follow when you “brief” any court case. You must first read the case opinion carefully. When you feel you understand the case, you should complete the worksheet following the
Instructions
below. While you are free to consult outside sources to better help you understand the cases, you must use your own words when completing the case brief worksheet.
Instructions
Reviewthe
Guide to Case Briefing
Download Guide to Case Briefing
, which includes a sample case brief worksheet.
Completethe
Case Brief Worksheet
Download Case Brief Worksheet
for Case 1:
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission
Download Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission
.
Optional: Review “Completing Your Case Brief” video below for further guidance.
https://cccd.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=ec27e292-9fa3-4242-b4b4-add5016313b7&start=4.838981
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
How to Brief a Case
When briefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a format
that will provide you with a helpful reference in class and for review. Most importantly, by
“briefing” a case, you will grasp the problem the court faced (the issue); the relevant
law or rule the court used to solve it (the decision); and how the court applied the rule to
the facts (the reason) You will then be ready to not only discuss the case, but to compare
and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue. The volume of your brief is not
important. Be concise.
When completing your Case Brief Worksheet, follow these rules:
1. Read the case at least once before you start your brief;
2. Write the brief in your own words — don’t just copy parts of the opinion; and
3. Organize your brief – use the format in the worksheet and be as concise as
you can.
Case brief format:
I.
Citation
Give the full citation for the case, including the name of the case, the date it was
decided, and the court that decided it.
II.
Facts
Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. Briefly indicate (a) the
reasons for the lawsuit and (b) the identity and arguments of the plaintiff(s) and
defendant(s), respectively. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court’s analysis.
III.
Issue
What is the question or essential issue being presented to the court? Usually, only one
issue will be discussed, but sometimes there will be more. Pick the one you think is
most important to what we studied in this unit.
IV.
Decision
Indicate here the court’s answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section
above. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the court’s answer to the
question you identified in the Issue section above.
V.
Reason
Summarize as briefly as possible the reason(s) given by the court for its decision and
the law relied on by the court in arriving at its decision. The court will have examined the
facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all “sides” and arguments presented to
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
it. How courts apply the rule to the facts and analyze the case must be understood in
order to properly predict outcomes in future cases involving the same issue. What does
the court consider to be a relevant fact given the rule of law? How does the court
interpret the rule: Resist the temptation to merely repeat what the court said in analyzing
the facts: what does it mean to you? Summarize the court’s rationale in your own words.
Sample Case Brief Worksheet
I.
Citation
What is the full name of the case, court, and year of decision?
Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979) or Rael v. Cadena, Court
of Appeals of New Mexico, 1979
II.
Facts
Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get
to the Supreme Court? In your own words, only include the few important
facts necessary to understand the case, e.g., the time of day a defendant was
arrested is usually not important, etc.
While visiting Emilio Cadena’s home, Eddie Rael was beaten by Emilio’s nephew,
Manuel Cadena. After the attack began, Emilio yelled to Manuel “kill him!” and “hit him
more!” Emilio never actually struck Rael nor physically participated in the battery. Rael
was hospitalized as a result of the beating.
III.
Issue
What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that
is to be decided in the case?
Under tort law, does liability for battery arise when an individual, present during the
battery, encourages the perpetrator of the battery by yelling “kill him” and “hit him more”
thus inciting the perpetration of the battery though he takes no actual part in the
physical beating?
IV.
Decision
What is the majority’s basic answer to the basic legal question in the case?
Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator
by words or acts.
V.
Reason
What rule of law was announced in the case? Explain the reasoning/rationale
behind the court’s decision. What was the court’s reason for why it reached its
decision?
Legal Environment of Business BUS G108
Case Briefing
The rule of law in the United States is: Civil liability for assault and battery is not limited
to the direct perpetrator, but extends to any person who, by any means, aids or
encourages the act. The act of verbal encouragement at the scene may give rise to
liability because the perpetrator is goaded and encouraged at the behest of the person
encouraging the battery. Here, Emilio encouraged Manuel to beat Rael and to continue
to beat him. The battery may not have occurred or continued but for Emilio’s
encouragement. Therefore, Emilio had some part in the beating even though he never
physically contacted Rael. Thus, Emilio is liable for the battery for aiding in its
commission and encouraging the act.
Case Brief Worksheet – BUS G108
I.
Citation
What is the full name of the case, court, and year of decision?
II.
Facts
Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get to the
Supreme Court? In your own words, only include the few important facts necessary
to understand the case, e.g., the time of day a defendant was arrested is
usually not important, etc.
III.
Issue
What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that is to be
decided in the case?
IV.
Decision
What is the majority’s basic answer to the basic legal question in the case?
V.
Reason
What rule of law was announced in the case? Explain the reasoning/rationale behind
the court’s decision. What was the court’s reason for why it reached its decision?
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission
432 U.S. 33 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1973, North Carolina enacted a statute which required, inter alia, all closed
containers of apples sold, offered for sale, or shipped into the State to bear “no grade
other than the applicable U.S. grade or standard.”…Washington State is the Nation’s
largest producer of apples, its crops accounting for approximately 30% of all apples
grown domestically and nearly half of all apples shipped in closed containers in
interstate commerce. [Because] of the importance of the apple industry to the State, its
legislature has undertaken to protect and enhance the reputation of Washington apples
by establishing a stringent, mandatory inspection program [that] requires all apples
shipped in interstate commerce to be tested under strict quality standards and graded
accordingly. In all cases, the Washington State grades [are] the equivalent of, or
superior to, the comparable grades and standards adopted by the [U.S. Dept. of]
Agriculture (USDA).
[In] 1972, the North Carolina Board of Agriculture adopted an administrative regulation,
unique in the 50 States, which in effect required all closed containers of apples shipped
into or sold in the State to display either the applicable USDA grade or a notice
indicating no classification. State grades were expressly prohibited. In addition to its
obvious consequence—prohibiting the display of Washington State apple grades on
containers of apples shipped into North Carolina—the regulation presented the
Washington apple industry with a marketing problem of potentially nationwide
significance. Washington apple growers annually ship in commerce approximately 40
million closed containers of apples, nearly 500,000 of which eventually find their way
into North Carolina, stamped with the applicable Washington State variety and grade.
[Compliance] with North Carolina’s unique regulation would have required Washington
growers to obliterate the printed labels on containers shipped to North Carolina, thus
giving their product a damaged appearance. Alternatively, they could have changed
their marketing practices to accommodate the needs of the North Carolina market, i.e.,
repack apples to be shipped to North Carolina in containers bearing only the USDA
grade, and/or store the estimated portion of the harvest destined for that market in such
special containers. As a last resort, they could discontinue the use of the preprinted
containers entirely. None of these costly and less efficient options was very attractive to
the industry. Moreover, in the event a number of other States followed North Carolina’s
lead, the resultant inability to display the Washington grades could force the
Washington growers to abandon the State’s expensive inspection and grading system
which their customers had come to know and rely on over the 60-odd years of its
existence.…
Unsuccessful in its attempts to secure administrative relief [with North Carolina], the
Commission instituted this action challenging the constitutionality of the statute. [The]
District Court found that the North Carolina statute, while neutral on its face, actually
discriminated against Washington State growers and dealers in favor of their local
counterparts [and] concluded that this discrimination [was] not justified by the asserted
local interest—the elimination of deception and confusion from the marketplace—
arguably furthered by the [statute].
…
[North Carolina] maintains that [the] burdens on the interstate sale of Washington
apples were far outweighed by the local benefits flowing from what they contend was a
valid exercise of North Carolina’s [police powers]. Prior to the statute’s
enactment,…apples from 13 different States were shipped into North Carolina for sale.
Seven of those States, including [Washington], had their own grading systems which,
while differing in their standards, used similar descriptive labels (e.g., fancy, extra fancy,
etc.). This multiplicity of inconsistent state grades [posed] dangers of deception and
confusion not only in the North Carolina market, but in the Nation as a whole. The North
Carolina statute, appellants claim, was enacted to eliminate this source of deception
and confusion. [Moreover], it is contended that North Carolina sought to accomplish this
goal of uniformity in an evenhanded manner as evidenced by the fact that its statute
applies to all apples sold in closed containers in the State without regard to their point of
origin.
[As] the appellants properly point out, not every exercise of state authority imposing
some burden on the free flow of commerce is invalid, [especially] when the State acts to
protect its citizenry in matters pertaining to the sale of foodstuffs. By the same token,
however, a finding that state legislation furthers matters of legitimate local concern,
even in the health and consumer protection areas, does not end the inquiry. Rather,
when such state legislation comes into conflict with the Commerce Clause’s overriding
requirement of a national “common market,” we are confronted with the task of effecting
an accommodation of the competing national and local interests. We turn to that task.
As the District Court correctly found, the challenged statute has the practical effect of
not only burdening interstate sales of Washington apples, but also discriminating
against them. This discrimination takes various forms. The first, and most obvious, is
the statute’s consequence of raising the costs of doing business in the North Carolina
market for Washington apple growers and dealers, while leaving those of their North
Carolina counterparts unaffected. [This] disparate effect results from the fact that North
Carolina apple producers, unlike their Washington competitors, were not forced to alter
their marketing practices in order to comply with the statute. They were still free to
market their wares under the USDA grade or none at all as they had done prior to the
statute’s enactment. Obviously, the increased costs imposed by the statute would tend
to shield the local apple industry from the competition of Washington apple growers and
dealers who are already at a competitive disadvantage because of their great distance
from the North Carolina market.
Second, the statute has the effect of stripping away from the Washington apple industry
the competitive and economic advantages it has earned for itself through its expensive
inspection and grading system. The record demonstrates that the Washington applegrading system has gained nationwide acceptance in the apple trade. [The record]
contains numerous affidavits [stating a] preference [for] apples graded under the
Washington, as opposed to the USDA, system because of the former’s greater
consistency, its emphasis on color, and its supporting mandatory inspections. Once
again, the statute had no similar impact on the North Carolina apple industry and thus
operated to its benefit.
Third, by prohibiting Washington growers and dealers from marketing apples under their
State’s grades, the statute has a leveling effect which insidiously operates to the
advantage of local apple producers. [With] free market forces at work, Washington
sellers would normally enjoy a distinct market advantage vis-à-vis local producers in
those categories where the Washington grade is superior. However, because of the
statute’s operation, Washington apples which would otherwise qualify for and be sold
under the superior Washington grades will now have to be marketed under their inferior
USDA counterparts. Such “downgrading” offers the North Carolina apple industry the
very sort of protection against competing out-of-state products that the Commerce
Clause was designed to prohibit. At worst, it will have the effect of an embargo against
those Washington apples in the superior grades as Washington dealers withhold them
from the North Carolina market. At best, it will deprive Washington sellers of the market
premium that such apples would otherwise command.
Despite the statute’s facial neutrality, the Commission suggests that its discriminatory
impact on interstate commerce was not an unintended by-product, and there are some
indications in the record to that effect. The most glaring is the response of the North
Carolina Agriculture Commissioner to the Commission’s request for an exemption
following the statute’s passage in which he indicated that before he could support such
an exemption, he would “want to have the sentiment from our apple producers since
they were mainly responsible for this legislation being passed.” [Moreover], we find it
somewhat suspect that North Carolina singled out only closed containers of apples, the
very means by which apples are transported in commerce, to effectuate the statute’s
ostensible consumer protection purpose when apples are not generally sold at retail in
their shipping containers. However, we need not ascribe an economic protection motive
to the North Carolina Legislature to resolve this case; we conclude that the challenged
statute cannot stand insofar as it prohibits the display of Washington State grades even
if enacted for the declared purpose of protecting consumers from deception and fraud in
the marketplace.
…
Finally, we note that any potential for confusion and deception created by the
Washington grades was not of the type that led to the statute’s enactment. Since
Washington grades are in all cases equal or superior to their USDA counterparts, they
could only “deceive” or “confuse” a consumer to his benefit, hardly a harmful result.
In addition, it appears that nondiscriminatory alternatives to the outright ban of
Washington State grades are readily available. For example, North Carolina could
effectuate its goal by permitting out-of-state growers to utilize state grades only if they
also marked their shipments with the applicable USDA label. In that case, the USDA
grade would serve as a benchmark against which the consumer could evaluate the
quality of the various state grades.…
[The court affirmed the lower court’s holding that the North Carolina statute was
unconstitutional.]
