写作练习legalwritinginplainenglish.docx

1、写作练习legalwritinginplainenglishExercises 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 exercises by looking up

2、 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 (front and back).

3、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 understand what you

4、ve 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 that part of a r

5、ubber 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 better. No one t

6、estified 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 unreasonably dangerous-onl

7、y 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 impose liability on

8、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 particular product in

9、 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 Cir. 1999). If

10、 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 casenote for Atlas Fo

11、od 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.ExercisesBasicWhile planning an

12、d 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 getting full-a

13、nd 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 article or continui

14、ng-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 like this: In

15、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 benefits were no

16、t 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 to Pilsen Corpor

17、ation, 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 the roads entr

18、ance 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, California, i

19、s 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.IntermediateRewrite

20、 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 reclamation on

21、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 made its reque

22、st 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 injunction were granted

23、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 that she claim

24、ed 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 an agreement be

25、tween 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 on April 11, 20

26、00, 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, he expanded hi

27、s 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 patents issued prior

28、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 unchronological narrative

29、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 versions for each co

30、lleague.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 appropriate hea

31、dings. 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 organizational problems

32、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 uninterrupt