Hello Mr. Holiday
First of all thank you for taking time to explain these things to us(or me)
. I wanted to ask you few questions...
1) Can you share your insight regarding how i should go about doing the case analysis? I know when lawyers argue(try to prove elements), they often cite cases and say that the court should decide this element is present because facts are similar/different from the previous case(and in that case, this element was satisfied/not satisfied), etc. In doing this, how do you know which fact is important and which is not? To put it simpler, how can you know how one case fits in or not? I know this question is very random, but I don't know how to put it more accurately, what I want to know is, HOW DO YOU DRAW ANALOGY from a previous case? simply compare every facts and just argue facts are similar/dissimilar?
2) I asked this question in the other thread, but what can a lawyer do, other than prove elements, to make his case stronger(if there is such things). To put it more understandably, is proving elements the only thing a lawyer can do? Does every single legal argument have to involve proving elements? (please understand I'm still new at law and do not know what legal reasoning really is)
3)I often hear, citing case is essential for every attorney to win (which is obvious I guess) but, on law school exam, citing things is largely omitted. For instance, on a tort exam, in proving offensive element in battery, we just state the rule:reasonable person standard applies...etc. What I find really interesting is, how lawyers go about proving each element. What exactly is involved in proving each element? Is this largely individual thing/talent? I know lawyers aren't supposed to say things that are pure guess/unreasonable assumptions, but where do you draw the line? and also, how is that different from what we do on an exam? Is a model answer to a tort exam, for instance, a lot lower quality than a typical lawyer's memo regarding a battery claim for his client?
4)What seperates a good exam answer from the bad ones? spotting as many issues as you could? explaining each element in detail? what goes in in the process of explaining elements?
Again, thank you for taking time to answer these questions. I know many of these may be very obvious to those who are experienced, but I(and many other first year students) are not and we find these questions very difficult. If my questions are too vague, please point it out. Thank you so much and have a great day!