Crafting a Legal Argument

[wd_asp id=1]

In this lesson, you will learn step-by-step how to craft a legal argument using a relatable example.

Before starting, you must know…

The facts of the case
Legal authorities
Your position or premise

This section uses a fictional example to explain a legal argument.

In a Georgia case, Eric (Plaintiff) and Josie (Defendant) owned adjacent land.
The defendant, believing that a particular parcel of land was hers, improved it by installing pipe for water, building a fence and shed, and keeping it in pristine condition. On occasion, she rented the property to tenants. This went on for 20 years.
When the plaintiff had the land surveyed, he discovered that he had title to the improved portion and brought an action against the defendant for the title.
The defendant counterclaimed for adverse possession.

Eric’s Argument:

In his introduction, Eric starts strong by stating his position and why he should prevail. His position is that two elements are missing from his opponent’s counterclaim.
Eric gives a brief and fair statement of the facts.
He proceeds to state the law.
Eric describes his best appellate case. The best case is one with similar facts as his that was supported by the appellate court.
Eric answers three questions. What are the facts of the best case? What was the outcome? What was the court’s reasoning?
Eric points out the ways that the facts in his case are similar to those in the appellate case.
In his conclusion, Eric makes a statement that is the result of applying case law and statutory law, as he sees them, to the facts in his case. Then he states a logical result of applying fact to law.

Josie’s Argument:

Josie starts with an introduction, facts, and the law.
She describes her best supporting appellate case and answers three questions. What are the facts of the case? What was the outcome? What was the court’s reasoning?
To compare her case to those in the appellate case, Josie begins with the law and draws direct parallels to her case. In other words, she states how the facts in her case are similar to facts in her best supporting appellate case.
Josie also includes another case with similar facts and findings, something Eric didn’t do. Then Josie goes on to shoot down Eric’s main supporting fact and strongest appellate case.
In her conclusion, Josie makes a statement that is the result of applying case law and statutory law to the facts in her case. Then she tells the judge how she would like him or her to rule.

In the end, Josie has the law, the facts, and the stronger argument.

Transcript

In this section, we\’ll look at each part of an argument using the example of plaintiff Eric and defendant Josie.

How might Eric craft this argument?

In his introduction, Eric starts strong.

His position is that two elements are missing from his opponent\’s counterclaim.

If he\’s right and able to persuade the judge of that, He is likely to prevail on his point.

State the pertinent facts.

Here, Eric gives a brief and fair stating of the facts even facts that may not be in his best interest.

He doesn\’t leave anything out to bias the judge.

Let\’s look at his facts.

The plaintiff owns land adjacent to the defendant\’s property. During the years 1993 until 2015, the defendant, believing that a parcel owned by the plaintiff was hers, improved it and built on it. From 1999 to 2004, the defendant rented the property to tenants. The plaintiff later discovered that he had the deed to the disputed parcel and brought the action for title.

The defendant counter claimed for quiet title by adverse possession.

State the law. A simple statement of the law will do.

You don\’t have to include an entire chapter of a statute, just the pertinent parts as long as court knows what specific parts you\’re referring to.

Describe your best appellate case, the best case is one with similar facts as yours that was supported by the court.

Eric answers three questions.

What are the facts of the best case?

What was the outcome?

What was the court\’s reasoning?

It\’s good to answer these questions about your best case. What Eric doesn\’t do here is cite other cases that might support his position in an argument, you want to persuade the judge to rule in your favor.

One way to do that is to essentially say that the appellate court has ruled in your favor more than once on this issue.

Point out the ways that the facts in your case are similar to those in the appellate case.

Eric wants the court to believe that Josie\’s use of the land was, like Gurley\’s, sporadic, not continuous and uninterrupted.

In his conclusion, Eric makes a statement that is the result of applying case law and statutory law as he sees them to the facts in his case.

Then he states a logical result of applying fact to law. In other words, he tells the judge how he would like him or her to rule.

Now we\’ll look at how Josie might craft her arguments.

Like Eric, Josie starts with her strongest argument, that all the requirements of adverse possession have been met. Now she has to persuade the judge that this is true.

Again, state the pertinent facts.

Here, Josie gives her version of the facts.

Like Eric, she doesn\’t leave anything out to bias the judge.

The facts are virtually the same as Eric\’s.

Despite their opposing positions, both parties rely on the same law.

In a situation where both the statutory law and the facts for each side are similar, the decision comes down to case law and judicial interpretation of the law.

Josie cites and describes her best supporting appellate case, Kelly v Randolph.

She answers three questions in regards to the appellate case.

What are the facts of the case?

What was the outcome?

What was the court\’s reasoning?

To compare her case to those in the appellate case, Josi begins with the law.

Then Josie draws a direct parallel to her own case.

In other words, she states how the facts in her case are similar to the facts in the best supporting appellate case.

She also includes another case with similar facts and findings, something Eric didn\’t do.

Josie doesn\’t stop there. She goes directly for Eric\’s main supporting fact that she moved out.

She argues that it isn\’t necessary to reside on the property claim possession, as long as she exercises dominion over it.

She follows this up with Dufour v Dufour, an appellate case that supports the point.

Judges like to hear that more than one appellate case supports your position.

You only need a few supporting cases.

Don\’t go overboard.

Then Josie goes after Gurley, Eric\’s strongest appellate case.

First, she gives an honest characterization of Eric\’s use of the girly case. He uses it to support his contention that the possession was not uninterrupted and continuous.

She points out the facts in law that made the Gerley Court rule against party seeking adverse possession, and she distinguishes her set of facts from the facts in Gerley.

In short, Josie tells the court why her opponent\’s argument doesn\’t work.

In her conclusion, Joseph makes a statement that is the result of applying case law and statutory law to the facts in her case.

Then she tells the judge how she would like him or her to rule.

In the end, Josie not only has the facts in law solidly in her favor, but her argument is more persuasive because of her supporting cases and tearing down of the defendant\’s best case.

In Georgia, she\’s likely to win.