A COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF / TUTORIALOUTLET DOT COM A COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF / TUTORIALOUTLET DOT COM | Page 4

example, “case reversed and remanded,” and—more important for our
purposes--broader substantive holdings which deal with the
interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, or judicial doctrines. If the
issues have been drawn precisely, the holdings can be stated in simple
“yes” or “no” answers or in short statements taken from the language
used by the court.
5. Reasoning
The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the
judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did.
This should be outlined point by point in 2-3 numbered sentences. For
example, Chief Justice Waite‟s reasoning in Munn v. Illinois:
1. States may regulate the use of private property only “when such
regulation becomes necessary for the public good.”
2. Grain warehouses, by virtue of their tremendous economic
importance, are devoted to a use (grain storage) in which the public
has an interest.
3. Grain warehouse operators, then, must submit to public control for
so long as they continue to operate their warehouses for the purposes
of grain storage.
6. Separate Opinions
Quite often, concurring and dissenting opinions should be subjected
to the same depth of analysis to bring out the major points of
agreement or disagreement with the majority opinion. The author of
an “A+” brief will make a note of how each justice voted and how
they lined up (such information is “ready to hand” on both Oyez.org
and Wikipedia, although the latter site is not always to be trusted).
Knowledge of how judges of a particular court normally lined up on
particular issues is essential to understanding that court‟s role as a
historical actor.
7. Historical Analysis