Guide Questions in Case Analysis

(a) Identify the parties

Concern yourself only with the principal parties.
Avoid having to go back to the beginning of the decision to find out how a
mentioned person figures in the case.
Focus only on the legal relationship between the parties relevant to the case; other
adventitious relations do not matter and should not take up your time.
Also be clear about the litigation status of each party.
(b) Prior proceedings
Before the case reached the upreme Court! what courts or tribunals did it go
through" #hese will include A$% proceedings! as well as preliminary
investigation and administrative proceedings.
&ho initiated the proceedings"
&ho were the parties to the proceedings"
&hat was the outcome of these proceedings"
(c) Theories of the parties
&hat legal doctrine or theory did the parties rest their cases on"
'ow did the court react to the parties proffer of theory"
(d) Objectives of the parties
&hat did the parties want" &hile it many times is the case that the defendant
simply re(ects what the plaintiff wants! it is also the case that often! the defendant
will want something other then the mere re(ection of the plaintiffs prayer.
&hich of the ob(ective are procedural" &hat are the substantive ob(ectives at
which the procedural ob(ectives are aimed"
'ow did the parties relate their ob(ectives to the theories they employed"
(e) ey facts
&hat are the facts found by the court that truly make a difference"
&hat are the facts that the parties advanced as key facts"
'ow did the court deal with the facts that the parties characteri)ed as key facts"
(f) Issues
&hat did the court take to be the issues"
&hat did the parties advance as issues" 'ow did the court deal with this proffer of
issues"
&hich were the issues of fact"
&hich were the issues of law"
(g) !oldings and "indings
&hat conclusions of fact *F+,$+,-. did the court arrive at" Conclusions of fact are
,/0/% doctrinal. &hile such conclusions may settle disputes between parties! they
,/0/% constitute (udicial precedent.
&hat conclusions of law *'12$+,-. did the court arrive at" Conclusions of law 3
when these resolve matters in issue 3 are doctrinal.
&hat comments on the interpretation and application of law did the court make that
were not really in the issue" *1biter dicta.
(h) #atio decidendi
#he ratio decidendi is the reasoning that supports the '12$+,- of the court.
#herefore! one can have a ratio only when dealing with issues of law.
+t is the ratio that constitutes a (udicial precedent.
(i) $isposition
'ow did the court dispose of the case"
&hat are contained in the decretal portion *fallo. of the (udgement"
&hat logical connection is there between the ratio and the disposition"
1ther possible case analysis 4uestions
!o% do provisions of la% and state&ents of fact figure in the
reasoning of the Court'
!o% does the Court arrive at its conclusions'
!o% does the Court refute positions it does not accept'