 |
|
California Law Review
|
|
|
|
| · Components
of the competition: I.
Casenote-60% II.
Bluebook and Editing Packets-20% III.
Personal Statement-20% ** All
work for the competition is to be done on your
own. This means that no one is permitted to
assist with, or even proofread, any of the
materials that you are submitting for the write-on
competition. · What we look for in a
casenote (A "model casenote", as
well as examples of other accepted casenotes, are
on reserve at the library):
I. Analysis A) We evaluate the
thoroughness, relevance, and effectiveness of the
analysis. Skillful use of authority to
support an argument, as well as critical,
evenhanded analysis of the court's legal and
policy arguments, are important here. Analysis
is the most important factor in our consideration
of the casenote. II.
Presentation
A) We emphasize clarity, conciseness, and
persuasiveness.
III. Organization A)
We judge the overall structure and logic of the
casenote. We also evaluate the
apportionment of space and the integration of
facts with legal arguments.
IV. Writing Ability A)
We consider grammar, syntax, sentence structure,
spelling, word choice, and appropriate use of
active voice.
V. Bluebook Form A)
We consider whether proper bluebook form is
followed throughout the casenote. · Suggested structure
and organization: I.
Introduction A)
Briefly set out what the court held, and what
your casenote will argue (thesis). II.
The Case A)
State objectively relevant facts and procedural
history of the lead case, and the court's holding
and reasoning. III.
Existing Law/Legal Background A) What
was previous law in this area? B) Be
concise, but use examples where necessary. IV.
Case Analysis A)
Was the case correctly decided? *Remember
to stick to your thesis B)
How does this case fit into, change, overule,
existing law? Does it use the same mode of
analysis to reach a different result? What
impact will it have on future cases? C)
Does court adequately justify it approach or
result-does it use previous law correctly or
accurately? Is its logic consistent and
persuasive? Are there issues and arguments the
court did not consider? D)
Is the decision sound in light of public policy?
Have other courts suggested alternative analyses
that are better in light of public policy? V. Conclusion A)
Summarize basic arguments and tie together piece. We hope this helps you
understand what a casenote is and what the write-on
competition entails. Keep in mind that all
of this information will also be provided in your
competition packets. As always, please fell
free to contact us with any questions about
casenotes or the competition in general. Thanks! Shalini
(sgoel@boalthall.berkeley.edu)
and Kevin (k_rivera@boalthall.berkeley.edu) |
|
| |
|
Copyright
© 2001 by California Law Review, Inc. |
|