Case Briefing
To fully understand the law with respect to business, read and understand court decisions. Use a method of case analysis that is calledbriefing. First read the case opinion carefully. When understand the case, make a brief of it. Free to consult outside sources to better help understand the cases, must use own words when writing brief.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- Decision.Indicate here?with a "yes" or "no," if possible?the court's answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section above.
- Reason.Summarize as briefly as possible,in own words, 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.
Instructions
- TheGuide to Case Briefing, which includes a sample case brief.
100% 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, actuallydiscriminated 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 Wprotect its citizenity in makers pertaining to the sale of foodstuns. 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 e Wind S W 6:34 P O 20-Feb DELLinspection and grading system. The record demonstrates that the Washington apple- grading 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-a-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. I 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 " [Moreoverl we find it W DELLCarolina 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 ostensibly 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. O WIn 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.] W O DELLsion.pdf 100% 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 inleffect 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 WashingtonHow 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 "briefing" a case, 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 -- put in all essential matters in the format described below and be as concise as you can. Case brief format: 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. Facts Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. 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. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court's analysis.1 / 2 100% 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. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court's analysis. Ill. 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. IV. Decision Indicate here the court's answer to the question (or questions) in the Issue section above. Determine what the relevant rules of law are that the court uses to make its decision. These rules will be identified and discussed by the court. For example, in a negligence case in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm, the relevant rules of law could be the elements of negligence, and the definition of 'assumption of risk" as a defense. V. Reason Business Law BUS G110 Case Briefing O WBusiness Law BUS G110 Case Briefing 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. The court will have examined the facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all "sides" and arguments presented to 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 Las 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 Citation Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979) I1. Facts 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 whe hospitalized ac s result of the basting 6:31 O W 20-Fe DELLCitation Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979) Facts 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. Ill. Issue 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 Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator by words or acts. The court affirmed the judgment against Emilio Cadena. V. Reason 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 Windo encouragement. Therefore, Emilio had some part in the beating even though he never 6:31 P O W 20-Feb DELLIII. Issue 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 Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator by words or acts. The court affirmed the judgment against Emilio Cadena. V. Reason 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. nvater Windows W O S
