How To Read a Court Opinion

With thanks to Orin Kerr of Georgetown University Law School, I've prepared a short primer on how to make your way through a court opinion. They can be pretty daunting if you've never encountered them before, so let's go step by step (we're not safe anywhere from Suzanne Somers):

Judges write opinions to explain how and why they came to a particular decision. It's essentially a story - a narrative - that walks the reader through what happened. Here is a recent court opinion from the U.S. District Court in Buffalo (the Western District of NY) that you can open in another window in order to follow along.

So let's say Donald Trump for some reason starts publicly picking on me instead of Rosie O'Donnell, and I sue Trump for being a boorish, insensitive loudmouth, but mostly for libel. When I file my complaint with the court (for which the court will charge a fee), my case will have what's called a caption:

Bishop v. Trump

I'm the plaintiff; Trump is the defendant.

It gets a little confusing when more than one person, or a company, is a party to the suit. One important distinction here: in a criminal case, it is the United States, or the state in which the charges are filed, that "sues" on behalf of the public. So if the federal government decided to files a suit or criminal charges against me, it would look like this:

U.S. v. Bishop

If the case was filed in state court:

State of Pennsylvania v. Bishop

Let's move on: next, you look for the case citation. For older cases, the caption tells you where you can find the opinion - in which law book. So for example:

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Here, by reading the citation, you know that you can find Tinker (which we'll discuss in the coming weeks), in volume 393 of a series of volumes called United States Reports. The opinion begins on page 503, and was issued by the Supreme Court in 1969.

But most of the cases we'll be working on will be of more recent vintage. The case citation still reflects, though, when it was filed. Often, the first two numbers of a case will reflect the year in which it was filed, as in 06-1001. Once the case is filed, a docket sheet is attached; this is a record of all filings, motions, and rulings in the case. A practical note: some court clerks are quite willing to give you access to the docket sheets in a case, others...not so much. With more courts putting more material online, this isn't as much of an issue, but tread carefully and politely.

Next, we check out who wrote the opinion. The last name of the judge who wrote the opinion typically appears immediately before the start of the opinion, as in "Bishop, J." The "J" stands for "judge" or "justice."

An opinion breaks down this way:

First, the judge will explain the facts of the case. Or, in short, what happened that brought the parties to court. No rules govern what's included - these sections are typically brief, but complex or novel cases sometimes mean longer facts sections. The judge will highlight what he or she believes are significant aspects of the case. Note: all of what is described in this section typically occurred before the suit was filed.

But if there is a past legal history, it will be summarized here, too - the motions, filings, proceedings, trials that we all see on Law and Order each week.

Take note of the terms. We've talked about plaintiff and defendant, but you'll also run into appellants (someone who asks a higher court to review a lower court ruling) and appellees (the party whose victory at the lower court may be reviewed), as well as petitioners (someone who is asking the higher court to overturn the ruling) and respondents (the party who responds to the petition). Don't worry - we'll talk about all of this in class, too.

Next is a discussion of the law in the case, usually in two subsections. First, he or she will outline the general legal principles at issue in the case. Then, the judge will apply the law to the facts of the case you're reading about.

A couple of things to pay attention to: what's the source of the law being applied? The Constitution? Common law? State or federal law? Second, check out how the judge reaches his or her ruling - what's the method he or she uses? Sometimes, they'll rule on the basis of "public policy" - ruling in a particular way will have better results for the rest of us than another approach. Some will cite broader notions of morality, fairness, but rarely "because I said so."

The judge may also note that ruling in a certain way is directed by past rulings, or precedent. Judges are often very reluctant to overturn longstanding precedent, believing strongly as they often do in the doctrine of stare decisis, which in Latin means "that which has already been decided should remain settled."

Finally, you'll get the decision, or disposition in the case. This is the action the judge has decided to take. They can dismiss a case, or rule that the plaintiff's were right. They can grant or dismiss motions. In appeals court cases, judges can reverse or affirm a lower court's ruling. They can remand it, or send it back to the lower court for another pass, often with additional instructions. For lower court judges, remands, reverals, and having one of your rulings vacated are not good things (Martha Stewart is on in the background).

Hope this is helpful. Poke around the different court sites and explore some opinions. See you Tuesday.