MEDIA LAW (JOUR 3633)
Here are some tips on how to read a law case.
1. THERE'S A LOTTA LAW IN THERE!
There are many legal issues contained in each case that have nothing
to do with media law. Also, there are media law issues that don't
pertain to your particular legal problem. You need to pick out what
affects your issues and ignore the rest.
2. I CAN'T TELL WHO'S SAYING WHAT.
This is a common problem, even for law school students. The best way
to help yourself is to write a little outline as you go along or draw
boxes or make columns, or something to sort things out.
For instance, a typical case will begin with a retelling of the "prior history" of the case. This is where you learn where the lawsuit started and what each court said along the way. It's easy to get confused here and think that the "instant" court (the one whose opinion you're reading) is talking. Usually not. Usually, what the instant court is saying is said near the bottom of the case, or at the bottom of each segment.
3. SPEAKING OF SEGMENTS ...
If a case is divided into segments, there's probably a good reason
for that. It could indicate more than one "claim" (reason for suing)
in the case, or that there was more than one defense. Draw columns on
a sheet of paper and try to keep notes on inf o from each segment
separate.
4. WHAT'S ALL THAT GARBAGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCE?
Judges and Justices usually don't just make stuff up. They rely on
precedent -- the law that judges and justices before them have made.
A case will typically include something like this:
The question before us is whether intent is an element of the offense. In Smith v. Jones (223 US 345) we said that the claim of invasion of privacy doesn't require a showing of intent (Brown v. Black, 333 US 555; Top v. Bottom, 666 F3d 777 (1994), cert denied, 888 US 789 (1995).
These paragraphs are hard to read, but you don't have to worry about the precedent too much. Just be aware that the court is citing other cases to back up what it decides.
But if the court cites one case over and over again, it's clear that the case is important in your field of law.
5. BUT, PROFESSOR SHURLDS, THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID IN THE CASE!
Sometimes students will read a case and come to the wrong conclusion
about the court's holding. The problem is that they thought the court
was making a ruling when the court was actually just repeating what
one of the attorneys argued. Oftentimes, the court will repeat what
the attorney argued, then say, "No way!" (Actually, they'll usually
say something like, "We disagree.") So watch out for arguments. They
aren't the holdings.
6. DON'T THESE GUYS EVER STOP TALKING?
You may think you're through reading when the majority stops writing.
But in many of your cases also have concurrences and dissents. The
concurrences are written by judges and justices who agree with the
outcome but for different reasons. Dissents are written by those who
disagree with the majority and want to say why.
So you think the dissents are just the losers, huh? Well, in one very important case to journalists, Branzburg v. Hayes (to decide whether reporters have to narc on their confidential sources), it was Justice Stewart's dissent that, for all intents and purposes, became the law.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, you will be responsible for reading and reporting on the concurrences and dissents.