Case Brief Template (With FIRAC Example)
Most 1Ls learn to brief by staring at a blank page. A reusable case brief template shaves the first ten minutes off every reading assignment — and, more importantly, keeps every brief in the same shape so your outlining and cold-call review scale. This is the template we use inside Scriba, plus a worked case brief example.
The case brief template
Every section is one short paragraph. If a section spills past four sentences, you're summarizing, not briefing. Fill each section in your own words — copy-pasting from the opinion defeats the point.
Header
- Case name (short form) — e.g. Palsgraf v. LIRR
- Court and year — e.g. N.Y. Court of Appeals, 1928
- Casebook page and course — for quick lookup later
Facts
Who did what, in what order, and how it reached this court. Include only facts the court relied on. If a fact isn't in the Analysis section, it doesn't belong here.
Issue
The precise legal question the court has to answer, phrased as a single sentence starting with 'Whether'. If you can't state it in one sentence, you haven't found it yet.
Rule
The legal principle the court applies (or announces). Write it in the abstract — the sentence should still be true if the facts changed.
Analysis
How the court applied the rule to these facts. This is the reasoning section, not a re-statement of the rule. Tie every sentence back to a specific fact.
Conclusion / Holding
Who won and the disposition (affirmed, reversed, remanded). Two sentences maximum.
Notes for class
Optional. Anything your professor emphasized, questions you have, or how this case fits with the assigned reading around it.
If your brief is longer than one page, you will not re-read it before class. Ninety seconds to scan is the target.
A worked case brief example: Palsgraf v. LIRR
Header
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., N.Y. Court of Appeals, 1928. Torts, casebook p. 172.
Facts
Two LIRR guards helped a passenger board a moving train. The passenger dropped a newspaper-wrapped package that turned out to contain fireworks; it exploded on the tracks. The concussion allegedly knocked over scales at the far end of the platform, injuring Mrs. Palsgraf. She sued the railroad in negligence.
Issue
Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff whose injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent act.
Rule
A duty of care in negligence runs only to plaintiffs within the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. 'Negligence in the air' — untethered from a foreseeable victim — is not actionable.
Analysis
Cardozo, J., focused on the guards' relationship to Mrs. Palsgraf. Whatever risk their careless handling of the package created was directed at the boarding passenger and his parcel, not at a stranger standing far down the platform. Because Palsgraf was outside the range of apprehension, the guards owed her no duty, and without duty there can be no negligence toward her.
Conclusion
Judgment for the plaintiff reversed; complaint dismissed. The railroad owed no duty to Palsgraf and was not liable.
Notes for class
Contrast Andrews's dissent (proximate-cause framing). Professor emphasized foreseeability-of-plaintiff, not foreseeability-of-injury.
How to adapt the template to your professor
- IRAC-only professor — drop the Facts section for exam answers, keep it for reading briefs.
- Procedure-focused professor — add a one-line Procedural Posture between Facts and Issue.
- Statutory-interpretation course — swap Rule for Statute + Canons of Construction.
- Constitutional Law — add a Standard of Review line above Analysis.
Where the template breaks down
Multi-issue cases (many Con Law cases, most Civ Pro decisions) don't fit a single-issue template. For those, repeat Issue → Rule → Analysis → Conclusion per issue and keep one Facts section on top. If a case has a concurrence or dissent your professor emphasized, add a short 'Separate opinions' block at the bottom — one sentence per opinion.
Common template mistakes
- Facts sections that summarize the whole opinion. Cut anything the court didn't rely on.
- Issues framed as fact patterns. 'Whether the guard was negligent' is a conclusion — the Issue is the legal test that decides it.
- Rules written as holdings. The Rule is the general principle; the Holding is what happened here. Keep them in separate sections.
- Analysis that repeats the Rule. If your Analysis paragraph doesn't mention specific facts, it's still Rule.
Where Scriba fits in
Scriba's brief editor is this template, wired up. Every section header maps to a FIRAC pane; every passage you highlight in the reader drops into the matching pane with a permanent anchor back to the source language. You still write every section in your voice — Scriba just enforces the shape and keeps the citation trail intact, so a week later you can outline from your briefs without re-reading every case.
Frequently asked
No — drop the Facts section for exam answers. On an issue-spotter, the fact pattern is given; use straight IRAC per issue and cite specific facts inside your Analysis.
FIRAC = IRAC + a Facts section on top. Use FIRAC for reading briefs (where you extract facts from an opinion). Use IRAC on exams (where facts are given).
One page maximum, ideally half a page. Anything you can't scan in ninety seconds won't help you at a cold call.
For your first semester, yes — briefing is how you learn to read like a lawyer. By second semester, book-brief the shorter cases and full-brief the ones your professor emphasizes.
Scriba is a notebook-style desktop workspace for law students. 7 days free, cancel any time.
Start free trial