Kaplan University PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis

1. Kaplan UniversityPA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis Unit 4 Seminar: Analyzing Cases: Analogizing and Disctinguishing Facts

2. Analogy Analogy is simply the process of identifying similar facts and circumstances. Similarity does not mean identical, it merely means comparable. Your text defines analogizing cases to be: “The process of comparing cases to argue that the key facts of one case are similar enough to another that the legal rule should be applied in the same way, and thus the current case should result in the same decision as the precedent.” For example, consider the holdings you synthesized in the DB in Unit 3. None of the cases contained precisely identical facts, but all contained similar facts. In case 1, the victim was completely unaware that the defendant had tried to strike him. In case 3, the victim may or may not have known that the defendants tried to touch him. These facts are analogous: they are similar enough that they can be reasonably compared.

3. Analogy Let’s consider an example: In each case, the defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Case 1. John and Fred are medical students. They had spent several hours drinking together after final exams. Neither John nor Fred were able to stand and walk, and when Fred fell and cut his arm, John couldn’t stop laughing at the mess all of the blood was making. John fell asleep on the couch and Fred bled to death. Case 2. Ed and Peter are law students. They spent the afternoon celebrating after final exams. Peter was drinking heavily and was clearly intoxicated, Ed had only one beer. Ed insisted on driving Peter home. Two miles from Peter’s house, Ed ran a stopsign when he was distracted while trying to read a text message on his cell phone, and the car was struck by an oncoming truck. Ed didn’t phone for medical help because Peter seemed fine except for an obviously fractured wrist and a minor cut on his head. Peter was actually severely injured and bled to death from internal injuries. Case 3. Mary and Frank are stockbrokers, and are attending a continuing education seminar together. Mary’s allergies have really been bothering her, so she takes a double dose of her medication. After they return to the hotel, Mary becomes very sleepy and is unable to concentrate. As she dozes on the sofa in their suite, Frank has several strong cocktails. He accidentally breaks a glass and cuts himself badly. Mary occasionally wakes and sees Frank laying on the floor, but doesn’t realize that he is bleeding. Frank bleeds to death.

4. Analogy What are the “analogous” facts among the three cases? In each case, the defendant failed to take any action to help the injured victim, due to a condition that was caused by the defendant’s voluntary act. Case 1: John was intoxicated because he had been voluntarily drinking. Case 2: Ed was distracted because he voluntarily attempted to answer his cell phone. Case 3: Mary didn’t notice that Frank was injured because of the condition caused by her voluntary act of taking a double dose of medication. There are other similar facts, but are they important? For example, in all three cases, the victim and defendant were “students”. But does that seem to have anything to do with the resulting death of the victim? When analogizing facts, it’s important to consider only the facts that may have a bearing on the issues.

5. Analogy Sometimes, the analogous facts may be very detailed. Case 4. Imagine you have been assigned the task of researching existing law, for the trial of a new client who has been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The pertinent facts are: The client and his brother Calvin were hunting together. They had agreed to meet at a designated spot for lunch, between noon and 1PM. At 11:30, Calvin lost his balance and fell into a ravine about 100 yards from the designated meeting place, severely cutting his leg. At 1:15 the client arrived at the designated spot, but was unable to see Calvin in the ravine. He proceeded to drink beer until nearly 2PM, by which time he was legally intoxicated. The medical examiner states that Calvin was likely alive but so weak he was unable to call out by the time the client arrived at the spot. Calvin had bled to death by the time the client discovered his body. Is this case analogous to any of the previous three?

6. Analogy There seem to be some close similarities. Calvin bled to death, as had the victims in cases 1 and 3. The client was voluntarily intoxicated, as was the defendant in case 1. The defendant’s condition in case 3 was caused not by alcohol but by drugs, but this certainly seems similar enough to be analogous. The client was “present” when the victim died, as were all three defendants. But do all of these similarities mean that the cases are truly analogous to the client’s case? It’s also important to consider the differences. In each of the foregoing situations, the defendant’s action or inaction was a contributing factor. In other words, but for something the defendant did or didn’t do, the victim would likely not have died. Is this true in the client’s situation? A case isn’t truly analogous if the facts, though similar, can be easily distinguished.

7. Distinguishing To succeed in an argument that a case, or series of cases, establishes a rule that must be followed by the court (precedent), the court must be convinced of the following: (1) The current case resembles the precedent in all important respects; (2) In the precedent case(s), the court reached the correct result. (3) In the current case, the court should reach the same conclusion as in the precedent case(s). .

8. Distinguishing Your text defines Distinguishing to be: “The process of differentiating the ruling in one case from another even though both may have similarities of fact.” This is one of the most important parts of analyzing cases. Even though a case may have many closely similar facts and circumstances, if it is possible to distinguish the case because of some logically important detail, the holding in the case may not be precedent. .

9. Distinguishing Think back to case 4: The client and his brother Calvin were hunting together. They had agreed to meet at a designated spot for lunch, between noon and 1PM. At 11:30, Calvin lost his balance and fell into a ravine about 100 yards from the designated meeting place, severely cutting his leg. At 1:15 the client arrived at the designated spot, but was unable to see Calvin in the ravine. He proceeded to drink beer until nearly 2PM, by which time he was legally intoxicated. The medical examiner states that Calvin was likely alive but so weak he was unable to call out by the time the client arrived at the spot. Calvin had bled to death by the time the client discovered his body. There are many close similarities between these facts and those of each of the three cases. But the facts here can be distinguished from those facts. The client was not present when Calvin was injured. In each of the cases, the defendant was. The client was unaware of Calvin’s injury when he was “present”. In cases 1 and 2, the defendant was, or should reasonably have been, aware of the victim’s injury. The client was not in the immediate proximity of the victim at the time of the injury that led to death. In each of the cases, the defendant was. .

10. QUESTIONS? .

11. Written Assignment • For this week’s assignment, review the Bibe memo in DocSharing. You will find the case in Doc Sharing. Look for the file: PA205_IMBibeMemo.pdf • Under each case brief you previously prepared, list one similarity and one difference between the Bibe case and each case brief under a section called “Analogizing / Distinguishing.” Thus, your outline for each case brief will now look like the following: • Facts • Issues • Rules • Analysis • Conclusion • Analogizing/Distinguishing