Outlining: Cases and their rulings - HELP!

[swburger]

hey guys,

i had a question about outlining.  when i plug in my cases under certain topics, do i put in the rule of law that they use to analyze the situation and come out with the result or do i use the rule that they come up with after analyzing the situation?

for example, for a property case - the rule they use to analyze the facts is the ACPA (cybersquatting), but the rule they come up with at the tend is that: registering a doman with the bad faith intent to make profit from the name of another is illegal, blah blah blah. 
 Which one do i include in my outline? thanks!

[jimmyjohn]

Use the rule that they formulate based on the case you are reading; that's why you read the cases.  In some cases it will be very similar to the rules they use in reaching the decision. After all, that's what lawyers and judges do, they take a new set of facts and try to find an existing legal precedent to fit into those facts.  But make sure you can pick out the specific rule based on the facts that are in front of you.  That's what goes in your outline.

[swburger]

Use the rule that they formulate based on the case you are reading; that's why you read the cases.  In some cases it will be very similar to the rules they use in reaching the decision. After all, that's what lawyers and judges do, they take a new set of facts and try to find an existing legal precedent to fit into those facts.  But make sure you can pick out the specific rule based on the facts that are in front of you.  That's what goes in your outline.

so just to make sure, i use the rule that they use to apply to the certain set of facts in that particular case, not the resulting rule after they have come to a conclusion. correct? 

[jimmyjohn]

No, sorry for the confusion.  You use the rule that they formulate after they arrive at the conclusion.  But like I said, it maybe virtually identical to the preexisting rules you read in the case.

[swburger]

No, sorry for the confusion.  You use the rule that they formulate after they arrive at the conclusion.  But like I said, it maybe virtually identical to the preexisting rules you read in the case.

hmm, not im getting conflicting answers from people my friends and online.

does anyone else have an answer to my question? is it the law they use to analyze the facts or the law they get afterwards?  they are not the same, usually. 

[jimmyjohn]

Ok, sorry to keep answering your question since you asked for other opinions, but...

The cases are put in your book because they are good examples of a particular area of law.  The reason they are there is because the editors and the professors want you to use that case as a basis for understanding that particular area of law.  For example, I will assume you are in torts and have read the case of Vosburg v. Putney.  In this case, they formulate a law of battery based on the facts that says something like: a battery is an unlawful, intentional contact that is unconsented to.  This is based on the facts of the case and is reasoned out by the judge in the case.  So you would put this in your outline under the heading Intentional Torts then the subtopic "A. Battery."  Then under battery you would say, harmful or offensive touching, intentional, unconsented to and in parentheses or something you would write Vosburg v. Putney

So what you are doing is using the rule that is gleaned from the case in your outline.  Hope this clears things up.

[Trancer]

I remember the rule for battery being something like "battery is an intentional harmful or offensive bodily contact... so the rule would looks something like this... in my opinion

I. Battery
   A. A Bodily Contact That Must Be:
      I. Nature of the Contact (disjunctive, either/or)
         a. Harmful - Definition of Harm
         b. Offensive - Definition of Offensive
   B. Intent

[lipper]

what separates the A's from the C's is how you apply it to a particular set of facts. its tough, but u should try to remember the set of facts that established the rule, and in your exam answers try to show why your situation is like or not like the case precedent. so in your outline, try to include a sentence or two on the facts also.

[smujd2007]

The fact analysis is important, but most people get that.  If you have the rule and only fact analysis, then depending on your school you may still only be in the B range.  What will get you up to an A is all of the policy discussions as well as the discussion of the law and the facts.  As for your original question about which rule to use: I use both rules and delineate them as such.  You say that one is the rule before the case, and one is the rule after the case. Typically, a teacher will ask you to only apply the new rule, but some professors (i.e. my property professor) will want you to apply the old rule and the new rule and to tell why the new rule is "better."  When teachers like policy  (as my torts professor and civil procedure professor did the first year) having these different rules in my outline was gold during my open book exams because this is often where they took policy questions. So I had already done the analysis beforehand and was able to answer the question quickly, pick up those points and move on.
Hope this is not too confusing....

[Jumboshrimps]

I don't include case names in my outlines; they includes only concepts and elements of offenses. I'm a 1L. I'd like to hear a reasonable argument for including case names, if anybody has one.