Open memo question Forum

[schmohawk]

Anybody ever used a case solely b/c of its procedural posture? Most of the time I use a case so that I can compare/contrast the facts, and the rest of my cases in the memo do focus primarily on the facts. But this one case is perfect only because of what the court said regarding the judge's error in allowing a motion to strike.

My professor did say that not every case we use has to be analyzed factually, but since the facts in our hypothetical case are in no way similar to the case I'm wanting to use, I'm skeptical. It's similar to the extent that it makes a ruling on punitive damages, which is relevant.

Good/bad idea?

[Renzo]

If I read this right, you are asking if doing exactly what your professor told you to do is a good idea?

[TigerBeer]

actual court opinions seem to reference cases solely for procedural shit all the time

[dakatz]

I'm pretty sure you can use cases that support your analysis in pretty much any way. There are various signals to indicate the level of support/type of support provided by the case. Scour that Bluebook and make sure to ask one of your reference librarians.

[JazzOne]

You can definitely use cases to support procedural issues even if thefacts are not perfectly analogous.

[schmohawk]

'Preciate the responses. I realize it seems like a stupid question, but I probably should have been more clear. I'm afraid if I delve TOO much into the facts of this case, I'll get a comment to the side "not the point for this issue/irrelevant here". Clearly, I know this. My professor doesn't mind if we cite a case without stating all of the facts, but to do so we must briefly state its relevance. Here, I'm wanting to be more than brief. It's going to take a paragraph for this to be successful. So at this point I'm just judging how much substantive facts to include, given that I'm really only focusing on the procedural facts.

Basically I just wanted to get kind a vibe from others. All of these answers helped me. Thanks.

[JazzOne]

'Preciate the responses. I realize it seems like a stupid question, but I probably should have been more clear. I'm afraid if I delve TOO much into the facts of this case, I'll get a comment to the side "not the point for this issue/irrelevant here". Clearly, I know this. My professor doesn't mind if we cite a case without stating all of the facts, but to do so we must briefly state its relevance. Here, I'm wanting to be more than brief. It's going to take a paragraph for this to be successful. So at this point I'm just judging how much substantive facts to include, given that I'm really only focusing on the procedural facts.

Basically I just wanted to get kind a vibe from others. All of these answers helped me. Thanks.

If this is a binding case that clearly lays down a rule for a particular issue, you might not need any factual analysis at all.