One of the most difficult tasks of legal case briefing is to extract the relevant facts from all the facts of an opinion. While this may seem fairly straight forward, it often is not. A fact is relevant if it is essential or helpful in determining the outcome of the case. The relevancy of facts are also highly dependent on the issue to be decided. Take the following hypothetical for example.

John was about 6′3″ tall. He was strolling through the park one day wearing his red jacket and blue jeans. As he approached Mary, who was taking an afternoon stroll, he spewed a myriad of verbal insults at her and knocked her crutch out from under her arm causing her to fall and injure herself.

If Mary sues for battery John’s height may not be relevant because it is immaterial if he actually intended to kick the crutch and she was injured. But if Mary sued for assault his height may be relevant because it would tend to show that she felt an immediate threat of harmful contact because of the insults and his sheer height. If he was much smaller then perhaps she would not have felt the requisite imminent threat. The fact that John was wearing a red jacket may or may not be relevant as well. If John claims that it was not him then the jacket may be relevant as a form of identification. But if identity is not in dispute then it really is of no consequence what he was wearing.

When deciding which facts are relevant you must keep in tune with the “pace of the case”. Think to yourself if I did not know this fact would the court’s holding still make sense? If you answer yes then it is probably irrelevant. If you answer no, and the holding would not make sense without that fact, then it is probably relevant.

Of course facts only make sense when rules of law are applied to them. Generally, the court will tell you what rules of law apply in the opinion. However, if it were that simple all the time the case would not be in your casebook ;). Often courts will take an established rule and either restrict it or expand it by adding the ubiquitous “exception to the rule”. The court’s decision becomes the rule of law. State this rule in a clear and concise manner. Keep it as short as possible. A rule may be stated something like this: if the activities of the state substantially affect interstate commerce those activities are unconstitutional and are reserved to the federal government.

God Bless and have a great day!