Exercises from Legal Writing in Plain English.docx

1、Exercises from Legal Writing in Plain EnglishExercises from Legal Writing in Plain English by Bryan A. GarnerCopyright 2001, Bryan A. GarnerPublished by the University of Chicago Press (www.press.uchicago.edu)Section 1. Have something to say-and think it through.ExercisesBegin the following exercise

2、s by looking up the cases cited. Then write a casenote for each one-that is, a short case synopsis that follows a standard form: (1) case name and citation; (2) brief facts; (3) question for decision; (4) holding; (5) reasoning. Your finished product should fit on a five-by-seven-inch index card (fr

3、ont and back). The exercises are increasingly challenging for either or both of two reasons: first, the increasing complexity of the legal principles involved; and second, the increasing difficulty of the language used in the opinions. When youre finished, have a friend assess how easy it is to unde

4、rstand what youve written.Heres an example of a casenote:Case: Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 519 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1974).Facts: While driving in city traffic, Henderson found that, despite repeated attempts, she couldnt brake. To avoid injuring anyone, she ran into a pole. An investigator later found t

5、hat part of a rubber gasket from the air filter had gotten into the carburetor. Henderson sued Ford on various theories, including defective design. Her expert witness didnt criticize the design of the gasket, carburetor, or air filter, but did say that the positioning of the parts might have been b

6、etter. No one testified that the air-filter housing was unreasonably dangerous from the time of installation. Yet the jury determined that the air-filter housing was defective and that this defect had caused Hendersons damage.Question: The expert witness didnt testify that the design was unreasonabl

7、y dangerous-only that it could be improved on. Is this testimony sufficient to support a jury finding that a products design is unreasonably dangerous?Holding: Mere evidence that a design could be made better-without evidence that the design itself was unreasonably dangerous-is insufficient to impos

8、e liability on a manufacturer.Reasoning: A person suing on a design defect must provide some evidence that the design of the product made it unreasonably dangerous. Specifically, the evidence must show that a prudent manufacturer who was knowledgeable about the risks would not have placed the partic

9、ular product in the stream of commerce. Mere speculation that a product might be improved on does not constitute evidence of a design defect. A manufacturer is not required to design the best product scientifically possible.BasicWrite a casenote for Serrano-Moran v. Grau-Gaztambide, 195 F.3d 68 (1st

10、 Cir. 1999). If you belong to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your casenote for each colleague.IntermediateWrite a casenote for Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1999). If you belong to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your casenote for each colleague.AdvancedWrite a caseno

11、te for Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc. v. Crane National Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1996). If you belong to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your casenote for each colleague.Section 2. For maximal efficiency, plan your writing projects. Try nonlinear outlining.ExercisesBasicWh

12、ile planning and researching a legal memo, fill out a whirlybird. (Youre ready to begin once you know enough about the problem to have an idea or two.) Use unruled paper. Take your time. Fill as many major and minor branches as you can, and feel free to add more branches. Then, when the paper starts

13、 getting full-and only then-create a linear outline using bullets. Remember that youre working on the basic unit of organization: once you have that, youll organize further according to issues and answers.IntermediateDo the same with a trial or appellate brief.AdvancedDo the same with a journal arti

14、cle or continuing-legal-education paper. For this one, you might need a large sheet of butcher paper.Section 3. Order your material in a logical sequence. Use chronology when presenting facts. Keep related material together.ExercisesBasicImprove the sequence of ideas in the following sentence. Start

15、 like this: In March 2000, Gilbert Spaulding applied to the Workforce Commission for extended unemployment benefits. Then use one or two extra sentences.* The lower court did not err by affirming the Workforce Commissions denial of Spauldings request for extended unemployment benefits, since those b

16、enefits were not available during the period for which he sought eligibility.Improve the sequence and phrasing of ideas in these sentences, perhaps by breaking them into separate sentences:* The state supreme court reversed the intermediate appellate courts affirmance of a summary judgment granted t

17、o Pilsen Corporation, the plaintiff, which had only requested a partial summary judgment on the discrete issue of fraud.* The issue is whether Davis Energy has granted its neighbors an easement to use a private road that enters a Davis fuel-storage yard, when for three years Davis has had a guard at

18、 the roads entrance but has posted no other notice about private property or permission to enter, and for seven years the owners of adjacent property have used the road to reach their own property.* The Plaintiff Los Angeles Dodgers, a corporation with offices and its principal office in Los Angeles

19、, California, is the owner of a professional baseball team that, since 1958, has played baseball in Los Angeles, California, and before 1958 played baseball in Brooklyn, New York, under the name the Brooklyn Dodgers, but in that year moved the site of its home games from Brooklyn to Los Angeles.Inte

20、rmediateRewrite the following passages to reassemble the elements in chronological order. Again, you might need to break one or more sentences into separate sentences.* This action arose out of a request by Pan-American to cancel its surety bond posted with the Land Reclamation Commission to ensure

21、reclamation on a portion of the Prelancia Fuels mine site. The Commission filed a petition for declaratory judgment and application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on February 16, 1996, to determine whether Pan-American could lawfully cancel its surety bond. Pan-American

22、 made its request after legislation had been passed that, according to Pan-American, would increase its liability under the bonds. The trial judge disagreed with Pan-American. At the request of the Commission, after a brief evidentiary hearing, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctio

23、n were granted on February 16, 1996, preventing Pan-American from canceling the bond at issue until final judgment on the declaratory-judgment action.* In Sinclair, the court awarded the niece of Sinclair a constructive trust. Sinclairs niece was suing Purdys estate for one-half interest in property

24、 that she claimed her uncle owned and had promised to bequeath to her in exchange for caring for him until his death. The court observed that the property was purchased in his sisters name. This was done for business purposes and because he and his sister shared a close relationship. There was also

25、an agreement between the siblings that the sister would be allowed to keep only half the property. The court ruled that withholding the property from the niece would be a breach of promise; hence, a constructive trust was awarded in favor of the niece.* Kathcart filed the instant patent application

26、on April 11, 2000, more than one year after he filed counterpart applications in Greece and Spain on November 21, 1998. Kathcart initially filed an application in the U.S. on November 22, 1997, claiming most of the same compounds as in the instant application. When he filed abroad, however, in 1998,

27、 he expanded his claims to include certain ester derivatives of the originally claimed compounds. It is the claims to these esters, which Kathcart has made the subject of a subsequent continuation-in-part application, the application now before the court, that are the issue here. Both foreign patent

28、s issued prior to the instant application in the U.S., the Greek patent on October 2, 1999, and the Spanish patent on January 21, 1985.AdvancedFind a published case in which the presentation of the facts is marred by disruptions in chronology. Write a short explanation specifying why the unchronolog

29、ical narrative was difficult for you to read. Rewrite the factual statement as best you can, omitting irrelevant facts and putting in brackets any facts you might want to add (but werent given in the case itself). If you belong to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your before-and-after versi

30、ons for each colleague.Section 4. Divide the document into sections, and divide sections into smaller parts as needed. Use informative headings for the sections and subsections.ExercisesBasicFind a pre-1950 law-review article or treatise with long stretches of text uninterrupted by headings. Devise

31、appropriate headings. If, as a result of this exercise, you find that the organization is poor, note the organizational deficiencies. If youre a member of a writing group or class, bring a copy of the relevant pages and be prepared to explain where your headings would go and to discuss any organizat

32、ional problems you uncovered.IntermediateIn a state administrative code, find a regulation having at least three sections with headings that dont adequately describe the sections contents. Devise better headings. If youre a member of a writing group or class, be prepared to explain why your edits would improve the regulation.AdvancedFind a proxy statement or prospectus with long stretches of uninterrupted text. Break up the long paragraphs into smaller paragraphs and add headings where appropriate. For a model of this approach, see Garne