A Simple Formula for Applying Precedent Cases in Your Essay Analysis

Your ability to articulate why a precedent case applies to the situation in your essay exam is a crucial skill to master in law school and in the practice.  

Yet many law students get stuck thinking a precedent case can only be applied when its facts are similar to those in the essay exam.  That's just not true! 

Applying precedent cases to future scenarios is not an apples-to-apples factual comparison. 

You can apply a case when the facts in the precedent case and exam are similar, vaguely related, and completely different.

I'll show you how in my simple formula below!  

A Formula for Applying Precedent Cases in Your Essay Analysis

If you want to argue that a party in your exam is entitled to the same outcome as a precedent case, you will apply that case in your analysis.    

To apply 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 court achieved its outcome in the precedent case.
4. Insert your application alert.
5. State that the reason the precedent court achieved its outcome applies to your fact pattern. 
6. State the facts from your fact pattern that support the same reason the court achieved its outcome.
7. Conclude that the precedent case applies. 

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 plaintiff in your essay exam and want to apply the Martinez case to satisfy 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 the object was removed from a location where she expected it to exist (component #3). Similarly (component #4), here the plaintiff was unaware the object was removed from a location where she expected it to exist (component #5) because the defendant pulled the shower mat up from the floor immediately before the plaintiff walked over it with wet feet (component #6).  Therefore, Martinez applies, and the defendant knew with substantial certainty that harmful contact with the plaintiff would result from his actions (component #7).

Notice that the precedent case and the fact pattern share the same scenario I created in component #3: the plaintiff was unaware an object was removed from the position they expected it to be.  That scenario is the connection that warrants the application of Martinez to the facts in the exam.  See how I argued that this scenario was the reason the precedent court reached its outcome (component #3) and the basis for applying Martinez to the situation in the exam (component #5)?

Some students are uncomfortable creating the scenario because they feel unqualified to explain why a court arrived at its decision. I encourage you to fight that gut feeling.  So long as your analysis is reasonable and tethered to the precedent case and the exam fact pattern, you are writing good analysis! 

If I were instead to compare the Martinez facts to the exam facts merely, my analysis would be much weaker and less persuasive because the facts are not the same (chair and falling vs. shower mat and slipping).  

See the difference between arguing that a precedent case applies because it shares the same facts in the exam versus because it shares the same scenario/reasoning (that you created or pulled from the decision)?

Where Do You Find Component #3?

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 and the court's reasoning why it reached its outcome when it applied the facts of the precedent case to the rule.

Sometimes, you have to get creative and create the reason.  When I sit back and think logically about why a court reached an outcome, I can usually come up with component #3 pretty quickly.  You might also consider whether public policy impacted the court’s outcome.  Sometimes, it also helps to pretend you represent both sides and see if you can devise different reasons why each side and the court would reach the outcome you desire. 

One of the many reasons I love practicing law is that you can create component #3 based on your experience, creativity, and ability to see the bigger picture and find nuances that strengthen your argument about why your client is entitled to the same outcome.  We have the ability to change the law, and that's pretty cool!  Here's a recent example where I did that in my personal injury practice.  

Conclusion

When your professor wants you to use precedent cases in the analysis section of your exam, make sure you are not simply doing a side-by-side comparison of the facts in the precedent case and the facts in the exam pattern.  Instead, go deeper--understand why the precedent court arrived at its outcome and use that reasoning to apply the precedent case to the situation in your exam.

Your exam score will thank you!

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

And if you want to become a master of essay analysis, its Step 8 of my proven study course, The Law School Operating System!