A Simple Formula for Distinguishing Precedent Cases in Your Essay Analysis

When the outcome of a precedent case is troubling for the party you represent in your exam fact pattern, you must distinguish the precedent case and argue it does not apply to your party. 

The problem is that students typically think distinguishing cases is an exercise in showing how the facts of the precedent case and the facts in the essay exam are different. 

That’s not true!  You can distinguish a precedent case when the facts of the precedent case and exam are similar, vaguely related, and completely different. 

You have to explain why the yellow tree, among the others, is different.   

I'll show you how in the formula below!

A Formula for Distinguishing Precedent Cases in Your Essay Analysis

If you want to argue that a party in your exam is entitled to a different outcome than the precedent case, you will distinguish that case in your analysis.    

To distinguish a precedent case, include these components in your analysis:

1. State the holding of the precedent case. 
2. State the facts of the precedent case.
3. State the reason the precedent court achieved its outcome in the precedent case.
4. Insert your distinguishing alert.
5. State that the reason in #3 does not apply to the situation in your fact pattern (negate it). 
6. State the facts from your fact pattern that support your contention that the reason in #3 does not apply to the situation in your fact pattern.
7. Conclude that the precedent case does not apply. 

An Example: Using the Formula to Write Analysis in Your Essay Exam

Assume you are in torts, learning about the tort of battery.  Your professor explains that a plaintiff must prove several elements to succeed on a battery claim.  One of those elements is intent.  Further, assume your professor assigned the Martinez case, where a defendant pulled a chair out from underneath a woman as she was sitting down, causing her to fall and get hurt.  In finding that the defendant intended for the plaintiff to fall to the ground, Martinez defined the intent element of battery as “acting with substantial certainty that the result of the defendant’s actions was likely to occur.” 

If you represent a defendant in your essay exam and want to distinguish the Martinez case to negate the intent element of battery, your analysis will look like this:

In Martinez, the court held the defendant knew with substantial certainty that harmful contact with the plaintiff would result (component #1) when the defendant pulled a chair out from underneath the plaintiff as she was about to sit in it (component #2) because the plaintiff was unaware an object was removed from a location where she expected it to exist (component #3). Unlike Martinez (component #4), here the plaintiff was aware that an object was removed from a location where she expected it to be (component #5) because when the defendant pulled the shower mat up from the floor immediately before the plaintiff walked over it with wet feet, he waved it in front of her face and yelled, “Abra-Cadabra!” thereby letting the plaintiff know the mat was not on the ground (component #6).  Therefore, Martinez does not apply, and the defendant did not know with substantial certainty that harmful contact with the plaintiff would result from his actions (component #7). 

The precedent case and the fact pattern share the same scenario that I created: the plaintiff was unaware an object was removed from the position they expected it to be.  This is problematic for the defendant I represent in the fact pattern, so I have to negate the scenario by stating that the plaintiff was aware the shower mat was removed in component #5. I then use the exam facts in component #6 to support my counter-scenario in component #5.  

To simplify, when distinguishing cases, the key is to create a scenario that explains (1) the reason the precedent court reached its outcome and (2) why that same reason is easily negated by the situation in the exam fact pattern.

If I were instead to merely contrast the Martinez facts to the exam facts, my analysis would be less persuasive because anyone can spot differences between the facts of a precedent case and an exam.

You, the well-trained law student, have to go deeper.  

Where Do You Find Component #3 to Distinguish It?

It’s rare for a court to expressly state in its decision, “The reason we came to this outcome is [x].”  You must glean from the totality of the case why the court reached its outcome when it applied the facts of the precedent case to the rule.  When I sit back and think logically about why the court made its decision, I can usually quickly identify component #3.  

This part is tricky and takes a lot of practice.  Don't be hard on yourself if it takes a few cracks to hone this skill.  

Conclusion

When your professor wants you to use precedent cases in the analysis section of your exam, make sure you are not simply contrasting the facts in the precedent case with the facts in the exam pattern.  That's not a true legal analysis.  Instead, understand why the precedent court arrived at its outcome and contrast that reasoning with the fact situation in your exam.

Be sure to check out my article on how to apply precedent cases in essay exams!

And if you want to get crazy good at analysis, it's Step 8 of my proven study course, The Law School Operating System!