USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Appendix AHow to Brief Cases and
A n a l y ze C a s e P r o b l e m s
How to Brief Cases
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,
you can 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 can prepare a brief of it.
Although the format of the brief may vary, typically it will present
the essentials of the case under headings such as those listed below.
1. 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.
2. Facts. Briefly indicate (a) the reasons for the lawsuit; (b) the identity and arguments of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), respectively; and (c) the lower court’s decision—if appropriate.
3. Issue. Concisely phrase, in the form of a question, the essential
issue before the court. (If more than one issue is involved, you
may have two—or even more—questions here.)
4. Decision. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the
court’s answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section
above.
5. Reason. Summarize as briefly as possible the reasons given by the
court for its decision (or decisions) and the case or statutory law
relied on by the court in arriving at its decision.
For a case-specific example of what should be included under
each of the above headings when briefing a case, see the review of
the sample court case presented in the appendix to Chapter 1 of this
text on pages 30 and 31.
Analyzing Case Problems
In addition to learning how to brief cases, students of business law
and the legal environment also find it helpful to know how to analyze case problems. Part of the study of business law and the legal
environment usually involves analyzing case problems, such as those
included in this text at the end of each chapter.
For each case problem in this book, we provide the relevant background and facts of the lawsuit and the issue before the court. When
you are assigned one of these problems, your job will be to determine
how the court should decide the issue, and why. In other words, you
will need to engage in legal analysis and reasoning. Here, we offer
some suggestions on how to make this task less daunting. We begin
by presenting a sample case problem:
While Janet Lawson, a famous pianist, was shopping in Quality
Market, she slipped and fell on a wet floor in one of the aisles.
The floor had recently been mopped by one of the store’s employees, but there were no signs warning customers that the floor
in that area was wet. As a result of the fall, Lawson injured her
right arm and was unable to perform piano concerts for the next
six months. Had she been able to perform the scheduled concerts, she would have earned approximately $60,000 over that
period of time. Lawson sued Quality Market for this amount, plus
another $10,000 in medical expenses. She claimed that the store’s
failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted negligence
and therefore the market was liable for her injuries. Will the court
agree with Lawson? Discuss.
Understand the Facts
This may sound obvious, but before you can analyze or apply the
relevant law to a specific set of facts, you must clearly understand
those facts. In other words, you should read through the case problem carefully—more than once, if necessary—to make sure you
understand the identity of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the
case and the progression of events that led to the lawsuit.
In the sample case problem just given, the identity of the parties
is fairly obvious. Janet Lawson is the one bringing the suit; therefore,
she is the plaintiff. Lawson is bringing the suit against Quality Market, so it is the defendant. Some of the case problems you may work
on have multiple plaintiffs or defendants. Often, it is helpful to use
abbreviations for the parties. To indicate a reference to a plaintiff,
for example, the pi symbol——is often used, and a defendant is
denoted by a delta——a triangle.
The events leading to the lawsuit are also fairly straightforward.
Lawson slipped and fell on a wet floor, and she contends that Quality
Market should be liable for her injuries because it was negligent in
not posting a sign warning customers of the wet floor.
When you are working on case problems, realize that the facts
should be accepted as they are given. For instance, in our sample
problem, it should be accepted that the floor was wet and that there
was no sign. In other words, avoid making conjectures, such as
“Maybe the floor wasn’t too wet,” or “Maybe an employee was getting
a sign to put up,” or “Maybe someone stole the sign.” Questioning
the facts as they are presented only adds confusion to your analysis.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
Once you understand the facts given in the case problem, you can
begin to analyze the case. Recall from Chapter 1 that the IRAC
method is a helpful tool to use in the legal analysis and reasoning process. IRAC is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
Applying this method to our sample problem would involve the following steps:
A–1
A–2
Ap p e n d i x A
How to Brief Cases and Analyze Case Problems
1. First, you need to decide what legal issue is involved in the case.
In our sample case, the basic issue is whether Quality Market’s
failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted negligence.
As discussed in Chapter 4 negligence is a tort—a civil wrong. In
a tort lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to be compensated for another’s
wrongful act. A defendant will be deemed negligent if he or she
breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff and the breach of
that duty caused the plaintiff to suffer harm.
2. Once you have identified the issue, the next step is to determine
what rule of law applies to the issue. To make this determination, you will want to carefully review the text discussion relating
to the issue involved in the problem. Our sample case problem
involves the tort of negligence, which is covered in Chapter 4.
The applicable rule of law is the tort law principle that business
owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their
customers ( business invitees). Reasonable care, in this context,
includes either removing—or warning customers of—foreseeable
risks about which the owner knew or should have known. Business
owners need not warn customers of “open and obvious” risks,
however. If a business owner breaches this duty of care (fails to
exercise the appropriate degree of care toward customers), and
the breach of duty causes a customer to be injured, the business
owner will be liable to the customer for the customer’s injuries.
3. The next—and usually the most difficult—step in analyzing case
problems is the application of the relevant rule of law to the specific facts of the case you are studying. In our sample problem,
applying the tort law principle just discussed presents few difficulties. An employee of the store had mopped the floor in the
aisle where Lawson slipped and fell, but no sign was present indicating that the floor was wet. That a customer might fall on a wet
floor is clearly a foreseeable risk. Therefore, the failure to warn
customers about the wet floor was a breach of the duty of care
owed by the business owner to the store’s customers.
4. Once you have completed Step 3 in the IRAC method, you should
be ready to draw your conclusion. In our sample problem, Quality Market is liable to Lawson for her injuries because the market’s
breach of its duty of care caused Lawson’s injuries.
The fact patterns in the case problems presented in this text are not
always as simple as those presented in our sample problem. Often,
a case has more than one plaintiff or defendant. A case may also
involve more than one issue and have more than one applicable rule
of law. Furthermore, in some case problems the facts may indicate
that the general rule of law should not apply. Suppose that a store
employee told Lawson about the wet floor and advised her not to
walk in that aisle, but Lawson decided to walk there anyway. This
fact could alter the outcome of the case because the store could then
raise the defense of assumption of risk (see Chapter 4). Nonetheless,
a careful review of the chapter should always provide you with the
knowledge you need to analyze the problem thoroughly and arrive
at accurate conclusions.
The Supreme Court Case Project
The Supreme Court Case Project requires writing a paper on a case that is currently facing the
United States Supreme Court for the current term. Select a case from the current term where
the verdict has not been decided. The case must be current and undecided. This project will
require an application of course objectives and research on the case. To receive points, answer
the Project Questions.
Label the Supreme Court Case Project Questions Numerically and Alphabetically
Label each question numerically but do NOT write out the question. For example, start your
paper with “1. A.”. You will lose 20% of the total points if you do not organize the paper.
Write a Minimum of 2000 Words
As you answer the Supreme Court Case Project Questions, be mindful of the 2000 word
requirement. Add sufficient detail that supports your each answer using the language and
theories of the course.
Write an Authentic Paper
Do your own work. Plagiarism Detection Software is being used in the course. Use APA. Do not
cite more than 30% of the paper or you will lose points.
Key Requirements of the Supreme Court Case Project
1. Read instructions carefully and ask questions where you need clarification or help.
2. Answer all Supreme Court Case Project questions listed below. Use the text book to include
the terms in the chapter as is applicable. (No other format will be accepted.)
3. Quote the text book as is stated or you will lose 10 points for each missing quote.
4. Number each question. Do NOT type out the question.
5. Write 2000 words in an authentically authored paper.
6. If you use any source, use APA citations. Include a works cited page. Do not cite more than
30% of the paper or you will lose points.
7. Choose an acceptable file format listed on front page of the syllabus.
Supreme Court Case Project Questions
1. A. Choose a case of interest to you from the list of the cases to be heard from the current
term. The case must be current. If the case has been decided, you will lose half the points
of the assignment. Search the case on the internet until your research is adequate to
write thoughtful, detailed responses using the language of the course. Provide the history
of the case.
B. Describe the Decision and Reason of lower court decisions. Quote the textbook to
support your answer.
C. Why are you interested in this case? Quote the textbook to support your answer.
2. A. State at least 2 other cases that are being used to argue the current case. Describe the
cases and their impact to the court. Quote the textbook to support your answer.
B. How will they be used to influence the court in the case you are researching?
Quote the textbook to support your answer using APA.
3. A. Why is the US Supreme Court hearing this case in the upcoming months? Quote the
textbook to support your answer.
B. What is the current precedent that is being challenged or the precedent being created?
Quote the textbook to support your answer using APA.
4. Choose a chapter in the text book that the case most directly centers on. It can be more
than 1 chapter. Integrate minimally 10 key terms in context on any aspect of the case.
Bold each term. This question cannot be integrated with other questions.
5. A. Look at the biographies and past decisions with similar cases of the current Supreme
Court justices. Select 5 justices and describe how they will individually vote on your case.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
B. Based on your research, predict how the court will decide your case? Write the
anticipated majority opinion for the case selected. Quote the textbook to support your
answer using APA.
C. Write the minority opinion. Support your answer.
D. How would you alone rule on the case? Support your answer using the language of the
course. Quote the textbook to support your answer using APA.
6. A. What will be the long and short term outcomes if the plaintiff wins? Describe impacts to
all related parties. Quote the textbook to support your answer using APA.
B. What will be the long and short term outcomes if the plaintiff loses? Describe impacts
to all related parties. Quote the textbook to support your answer using APA.
7. A. What did you learn in this assignment? Quote the text to support your answer with APA.
8. Include a Reference Page.
Case criterion:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Identifies the Main Issues or Problems in the case Q. 1, 2
Analyzes and Evaluates the issues and Problems Q. 2, 3, 4, 5
Formulates Effective Solutions or Strategies Q. 5, 6, 7, 8
Links to Course Material or Research – Q. 1-8
Writing Mechanics and APA Formatting
United States Supreme Court Cases for Spring 2020 Term- You must select one to research for the paper!
January Sitting
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 17-1712 [Arg: 1.13.2020]
Issue(s): (1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary
misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk
thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by
fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk
thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086 [Arg: 1.13.2020]
Issue(s): Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from
raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
Kelly v. U.S., No. 18-1059 [Arg: 1.14.2020]
Issue(s): Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy
reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., No. 18-1233 [Arg: 1.14.2020]
Issue(s): Whether, under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite
for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which
provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any
“discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the
challenged personnel action.
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 [Arg: 1.21.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits a
nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Shular v. U.S., No. 18-6662 [Arg: 1.21.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the determination of a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the
same categorical approach used in the determination of a “violent felony” under the act.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020]
Issue(s): Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to
invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords
students the choice of attending religious schools.
February Sitting
Opati v. Republic of Sudan, No. 17-1268 [Arg: 2.24.2020]
Issue(s): Whether, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. §
1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the
statute.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1584 [Arg: 2.24.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority to grant rights-of-way under the Mineral
Leasing Act through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail within national forests.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1587 [Arg: 2.24.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and National
Trails System Act to grant rights-of-way through national-forest lands that the Appalachian Trail traverses.
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for
commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially
unconstitutional.
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369 [Arg: 2.26.2020]
Issue(s): Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C.
1915(g).
Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020]
Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review
factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020]
Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension
clause.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7 [Arg: 3.3.2020]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether, if the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, 12 U.S.C.
§5491(c)(3) can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 18-1501 [Arg: 3.3.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as
“equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though the Supreme Court has determined that such
disgorgement is a penalty.
June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring
physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme
Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020]
Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and
safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to
their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable –
per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S.
Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.
March Sitting
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635
Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding
production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715
Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the
constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his
business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760
Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President
Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, No. 18-540
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating
pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority
of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the
Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.
Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956
Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the
petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526
Issue(s): Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the
historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46
Issue(s): Whether, when the Lanham Act states generic terms may not be registered as trademarks, the addition by
an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable
trademark.
FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71
Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money
damages against individual federal employees.
U.S. v. Briggs, No. 19-108
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own
longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred
between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177
Issue(s): Whether – when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc.,
the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required
respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a
policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds – the First
Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating
overseas that are affiliated with respondents.
U.S. v. Collins, No. 19-184
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own
longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred
between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, No. 19-199
Issue(s): Whether, under Section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and Section 8 of the Railroad
Retirement Act, the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a
“final decision” subject to judicial review.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267
Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employmentdiscrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out
important religious functions.
Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292
Issue(s): Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New
Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a
“seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts
from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer,
when the employee carried out important religious functions.
Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309
Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits
judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts,
with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; (2) whether the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more
than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party
is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be
members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years
without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other
courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts
from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer,
when the employee carried out important religious functions.
City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357
Issue(s): Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an
interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that
property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
Walker v. U.S., No. 19-373
Issue(s): Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a
“violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438
Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of
conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631
Issue(s): Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s
automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional
violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635
Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding
production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715
Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the
constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his
business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760
Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President
Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
