CREAC- Explanation vs. Analysis Forum

[cmartin5970]

I'm working on my CREAC office memo and am having trouble differentiating between the analysis and explanation section. In most of our previous memos, the Rule only involved one case and the E section would be the example case which followed the rule. For this memo there are multiple cases which are helping me shape and synthesize the rule. I understand all this and now is where I am getting confused. I have tried searching and looking in my textbook but haven't had any luck.

When I am using multiple cases to synthesize the rule, do I explain the cases briefly in the explanation section? I believe we are supposed to write a sentence or two about background facts supporting why they came to the conclusion, which hopefully will correlate to our case.

When I get the analysis section, am I supposed to pick out one case and discuss how it is analogous or just generally discuss my case? This is where I am really confused. For instance, say I am using a rule which came from a statute and I used 3 cases to synthesize and show the limitations of the rule. I then briefly wrote a sentence or 2 on each case in the explanation section. Now that I am in the analysis section, do I just pick one case and say how it is analogous to my case? or do I write about how my case is analogous to the rule I synthesized and not focus on one case.

[Oglethorpe]

I'm working on my CREAC office memo and am having trouble differentiating between the analysis and explanation section. In most of our previous memos, the Rule only involved one case and the E section would be the example case which followed the rule. For this memo there are multiple cases which are helping me shape and synthesize the rule. I understand all this and now is where I am getting confused. I have tried searching and looking in my textbook but haven't had any luck.

When I am using multiple cases to synthesize the rule, do I explain the cases briefly in the explanation section? I believe we are supposed to write a sentence or two about background facts supporting why they came to the conclusion, which hopefully will correlate to our case.

When I get the analysis section, am I supposed to pick out one case and discuss how it is analogous or just generally discuss my case? This is where I am really confused. For instance, say I am using a rule which came from a statute and I used 3 cases to synthesize and show the limitations of the rule. I then briefly wrote a sentence or 2 on each case in the explanation section. Now that I am in the analysis section, do I just pick one case and say how it is analogous to my case? or do I write about how my case is analogous to the rule I synthesized and not focus on one case.

This is very general advice because what your asking is very fact specific. Generally, use the R section to explain the BLL. Then, use the E section to give examples (case illustrations). Your examples should be relevant to the fact pattern you are analyzing. Begin your case illustrations with a general proposition that you think the case stands for. This proposition should be relevant to your fact pattern in some way, but it can also illustrate some uncertainty in the BLL that might be relevant

Then move on to the A section. Start this section by applying your facts to the general BLL. Once you have done this, figure out a way to tie your analysis into the general propositions from your case illustrations. Depending on your professor, use the next paragraph to make a counter argument (again using a proposition from your case illustrations or identifying a weakness in your argument). In your final paragraph, explain why the counter argument doesn't apply to your fact pattern. Just remember, try to move from general to specific in each section.

[LA626]

This is how my professor explained it, and it seems to make sense to me.

C: Context/Briefly state your bottom line
R: The Applicable Rule - Synthesize the rule from case law
E: Explanation - Proves the rule. It should show how you derived the rule from the various cases
________________________________________________________________________
A: Application - Take the rule and explanation and show how relates to your case
C: Conclusion - Restate your bottom line

There should be a line between E/A where no new facts or information is introduced after E. A should just be the application of your synthesized rule to your case. My professor discouraged the case by case analysis method for our memos. Instead we're suppose to E: explain the rule, and show how we derived the rule - here we can indicate distinct facts/circumstances to differentiate the cases and how the rule was previously applied. Then when we move on to the application of the rule, she basically wanted us to just apply the rule to the case - instead of case by case and explaining the different facts surrounding each case, examine the rule by breaking down the concepts/requirements to satisfy the rule.

I hope this helps. Just a disclaimer though, I am a 1L so...yeah. But that is how our prof explained it to us, and it makes sense to me

[northwood]

explanation: state if all or some of the elements of the rule need to be fulfilled. Explain what the elements are ( ie provide an example from established case law) if there are any notable exceptions that may apply to the case, state them. but make sure its clear that those are the exceptions.

applicaiton: take each prong of the rule and apply it to the facts of your case.

[osheimb]

In your Rule Explanation, pick out the facts from the cases you're using that demonstrate the relevant rule. Explain how these facts prove your rule synthesis.

Then, in your rule application, draw analogies between the facts of your case and the facts of your cases on point. If the facts are very similar then a factual comparison could be quite compelling. If the facts are not as close then use the underlying reasoning (also called policy or rationale).

Good luck!