Surprised it's not good to define. I use the definition to apply it to the facts usually, like battery is an unpermitted contact...therefore in this case a battery was committed because even though the boy was joking around, he pushed his friend down.
your problem might be that this isn't a black-and-white issue. you can certainly argue that a joke-push is a permitted contact, even in vosburg they emphasized that the kick was during class and hinted it might be different if it happened during recess, etc. or talk about incentives...if people always had to say "yes, you can push me now" to a contact to be permitted, society couldn't function, blahlbhgahag
Ahhhh...thank you! I usually do black and white to start, and then end with something like the defendant would argue that...but I usually don't add in any policy analysis, that's what may be missing!
I think you missed his point. I don't think it was that you should argue policy (its unlikely not arguing policy hurt you that much). I think his point was rather that you need to argue each element of a law if it might be possible.
IE: Battery is (1) intentional infliction of (2) harmful or offensive (3) bodily contact. A proper analysis needs to argue each one of the 3 elements. (1) Intent might be present because B threw the rock towards A and most people don't throw rocks towarsd others unless they intend to hit them but it might not exist b/c B normally wears glasses, but wasn't at the time he threw the rock . He might not have seen A and couldn't have intended to throw the rock at A b/c he didn't know he was there. A can counter this by saying that B had constructive intent ( feasor knew with substantial certainty that a battery would occur) b/c a person that throws a rock most likely knows with substantial certainty that a person might be hurt. B will counter that he thought it was an empty field w/ no one in it and thus couldn't had had substantial certainty.
Then you will need to do the same thing for 2 and 3. You should mostly only use policy to help argue for each side (IE: courts might find for A b/c they don't like to encouraging the throwing of rocks but some courts do like to encourage it b/c it helps to strengthen arms for baseball), but you may also offer the policy behind the rule (do this quickly). Ultimately the key is to argue everything possible and NEVER be conclusive (always show the reason why). Note though that not every element is arguable. IE: the hypo says that B punched A then contact isn't really arguable. You still need to say though that "there was contact b/c B punched A" and not just "there was contact."
As for case citing. I don't think I citing many cases. I'm sure I did but it was seldom and sporadic and probably didn't effect my grade that much.
All this is with the warning that each prof is different. If your prof likes policy and wants cases cited then you better do it (or do it more often).