To brief a case is to provide a short summary of it. A case brief should have sufficient information that can enable someone to make fair remarks about the situation under consideration. In this regard, this paper analyses a brief of the case Snyder v. Turk, 90 Ohio App. 3d 18, 19, 627 N.E.2d 1053, 1054 (1993) with the aim of determining whether it is a fair representation of the case or not. The paper critiques various aspects of a good case briefing before applying them to the summary of Snyder v. Turk.
A good case brief should show clear case facts that include the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as well as the incident that led to the case. In this regard, attention should be given to information that can be subjected to legal arguments. The law that the plaintiff relied on to seek legal redress should also be included in the brief.
This type of analysis of a case should contain the procedural history of this case. Hence, the decisions of lower courts should be highlighted if the case is on the appeal stage. Fines imposed by lower courts should also be mentioned. A brief involving the appeal case must mention whether it was the plaintiff or the defendant who made it and the reason for appealing.
A case brief should outline the case issues. The section of the law under which the court determined criminality and the main facts of the case that were directly linked to that law should be thoroughly highlighted. In addition, procedural issues arising from the decisions of lower courts should be presented.
A brief of a case should also define the decision reached by the court in relation to the case (judgement). This decision may be a confirmation or reversal of the ruling of lower courts. The law that the court relied on to reach its decision should be included as well. The court’s reasoning must be summarised in the brief report. Lastly, the latter should contain whether the court’s decision was unanimous or contested.
In the brief of Snyder v. Turk, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is outlined and the case facts are well presented. However, the law that the plaintiff relied on to seek the attention of the court is not mentioned in the facts. In addition, the procedural history of the case is missing in the brief, for example, that Snyder v. Turk was an appeal case. The decision of the trial court should have been added to the case summary together with the side that appealed and the reason for appealing.
It should be stated that the case issue in relation to the original case is well captured in the brief. However, the procedural issues that resulted from the ruling of the trial court are lacking.
The holding of the court is carefully highlighted in addition to the case judgement. In this case, it is held that Turk committed a crime. However, though the brief mentions the law in question, the reasoning that led to the court’s decision is not presented in it. Finally, the brief report fails to reveal that judges reached a unanimous decision.
In conclusion, this case brief does not give a fair representation of the case Snyder v. Turk, 90 Ohio App. 3d 18, 19, 627 N.E.2d 1053, 1054 (1993). The available information cannot sufficiently inform a person who is not privy to the case. In this regard, the person, who has prepared this case brief, is hereby given five marks out of ten.
Reference
Snyder v. Turk, 90 Ohio App. 3d 18, 19, 627 N.E.2d 1053, 1054 (1993).