Case analysis: analysing a line of authority

1. 1 of 5

   Identification of the ratio

   Whether the binding proposition of each case is separated from statements the court did not need to make.

   1 Not yet competent

   The analysis restates the facts and the outcome without identifying what the case decides. Passages quoted from the judgment are treated as the rule whether or not the court needed them to reach its result.

   2 Developing

   A proposition is identified for the leading case, but it is drawn at the level of the headnote. Statements made in passing are used as though they bind, and the material facts the proposition depends on are not separated from the incidental ones.

   3 Competent

   The ratio of each case is stated in the student's own words and is tied to the material facts it rests on. Statements the court did not need to make are identified as such and are used for their persuasive weight rather than as authority.

   4 Strong

   As competent, and where the ratio is genuinely contestable the analysis sets out the competing formulations, notes which one later courts have adopted, and states what turns on the difference between them.

2. 2 of 5

   Handling of the line of authority

   Whether the cases are ordered into a development rather than listed, and whether the hierarchy of courts is applied correctly.

   1 Not yet competent

   Cases appear in the order they were found. Decisions of different courts carry the same weight, and there is nothing to show which of them bind the court the question concerns.

   2 Developing

   The cases are arranged by date and the court and year are given, but the analysis does not say what each decision did to the position that preceded it. Distinguishing, following, and overruling are used loosely or interchangeably.

   3 Competent

   Each case is placed by what it did to the one before it. The analysis identifies which decisions bind, which persuade, and which have been distinguished, and it states the ground on which each was distinguished.

   4 Strong

   As competent, and the analysis identifies the point at which the line changed direction, names the decision that changed it, and states what survives of the earlier authorities after that point.

3. 3 of 5

   Use of primary sources

   Whether propositions are supported from the judgments themselves, and cited closely enough for a reader to check them.

   1 Not yet competent

   Propositions are attributed to cases without a citation, or citations are incomplete to the point that the decision cannot be located. Secondary sources are reproduced as though they were the judgment.

   2 Developing

   Citations are present and mostly complete, but there are no pinpoint references, so a reader has to search the judgment for the passage relied on. Some propositions rest on a textbook or a commentary rather than on the decision itself.

   3 Competent

   Every proposition attributed to a case carries a citation with a pinpoint to the paragraph or page relied on. Quotations are accurate and are given with enough of the surrounding reasoning for a reader to see what the court was addressing.

   4 Strong

   As competent, and the analysis works from the judgment rather than around it, taking in a dissenting or concurring judgment where it bears on the argument, and noting where a later court has read the same passage differently.

4. 4 of 5

   Application to the problem

   Whether the authority is applied to the facts given, rather than summarised alongside them.

   1 Not yet competent

   The authorities and the facts are set out in separate sections and never meet. The conclusion does not follow from the cases discussed, and would be unchanged if a different line of cases had been used.

   2 Developing

   The application is asserted rather than reasoned. The analysis states that a case applies without identifying the facts that make it comparable, and the facts that would distinguish it are not addressed.

   3 Competent

   Each authority relied on is applied to specific facts from the problem, with the points of comparison stated. Facts that cut the other way are addressed rather than left out, and the conclusion follows from what has been established.

   4 Strong

   As competent, and the analysis identifies which facts are doing the work, states what would change the answer if those facts were different, and qualifies the conclusion to the extent the authority actually supports it.

5. 5 of 5

   Structure and expression

   Whether the reader can follow the argument in one pass, and whether the language is used precisely.

   1 Not yet competent

   There is no visible structure. Points are repeated in more than one place, and a reader cannot tell what the analysis concludes without reading it twice.

   2 Developing

   Sections exist but are organised case by case rather than by issue, so a reader following a single question has to gather it from several places. Terms such as liable, responsible, and at fault are used interchangeably.

   3 Competent

   The analysis is organised by issue. Each section opens with the question it answers and closes with what it establishes. Legal terms are used with their settled meanings, and any term whose meaning is contested is defined where it is first used.

   4 Strong

   As competent, and the writing is economical enough that a reader who does not know the cases can follow the argument, without any loss of precision in the process.

Machine readable file: /rubrics/case-analysis-line-of-authority.json. Holds the criteria, the four levels, the version, and the licence, for loading into your own system.

Cite it as: ReadyHo rubric library. Case analysis: analysing a line of authority, version 0.2. https://readyho.com/rubrics/case-analysis-line-of-authority. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

• Design

  Communication design: an identity system and its rationale

• Law

  Contract drafting: limitation of liability

• Architecture

  Design development: a studio project at review