The Volokh Conspiracy

prof.,

at page seven: "case *or* controversy" requirement, or "case *and* controversy"?

you can also google "case *in* controversy" and find no shortage of otherwise sound article iii references.

Wouldn't it make more sense to require law students to be able to read before you admit them?

Of course it would, but once they're in, lawprofs are supposed to "teach" them. To that end, this essay is a good idea.

[A]t page seven: "case *or* controversy" requirement, or "case *and* controversy"?

I would think "case or controversy" is clearer, because a suit need only be a case or a controversy to be justiciable; it need not be both at the same time. Art. III s 2, incidentally, does not use either phrase.

Orin,
I skimmed the article but did you mention the "standard of review"? I think that is pretty important and often times determinative of the outcome (but edited cases in law books leave this part out generally)

Another quibbling comment. While you are, of course, quite correct that criminal cases are captioned United States v. Smith or People v. Smith or State v. Smith, in habeas corpus cases the fiction is that the Warden is being sued because of an unlawful confinement--and not the State directly. As a result, we have cases like Stickland v. Washington or Roe v. Flores-Ortega. These cases also discuss issues of criminal law and procedure.

As an aside, my Criminal Procedure professor once joked that if you wanted true immortaility, become the warden of a maximum security prison. Do a Westlaw search looking for cases with "Wainwright", "Schriro", or "Estelle" in the caption (in the AllFeds database) and you will see what I mean.

Orin:

I agree it is not particularly important for your essay. I was thinking of helpful sentences like "Sometimes cases discussing criminal issues have a caption with two last names listed as parties. Don't be too concerned about why this happens; just be aware that it does."

If it's not too late for suggestions . . .

I agree with the commenter above - the section stating:

When two people disagree and that disagreement leads to a lawsuit, the lawsuit will sometimes end with a ruling by a judge in favor of one side. The judge will explain the ruling in a written document referred to as an “opinion.” The opinion explains what the case is about, discusses the relevant legal principles, and then applies the law to the facts to reach a ruling in favor of one side and against the other

is a bit misleading. I would suggest:

When two people disagree and that disagreement leads to a civil (as opposed to criminal) lawsuit, if the lawsuit does not settle and goes to trial, there will be a jury verdict or, sometimes, a decision by the trial judge. If the losing party believes the verdict or decision is wrong, they may appeal and the appellate court, usually made up of 3 judges, will read briefs and listen to oral argument from the parties and then issue a written ruling, called an “opinion.” The opinion explains what the case is about, discusses the relevant legal principles, and then applies the law to the facts to reach a ruling in favor of one side and against the other . . .

Finally, at the end when you discuss why we read opinions, you mention the historical reason and the client counseling reason. I think there is a third, more important reason to practicing attorneys: They will need to frame their arguments in motions in terms of precedent. To me, that is at least as important as being able to explain the law to clients.

Thanks for the guide! It should prove to be a very helpful reference in these upcoming weeks. Should the last sentence in Know the Disposition read thought, instead of though?

two vagrant comments

The Caption: The first part of the case is the title of the case, known as the “caption.”

In some areas of the country that is referred to as "the style of the case."

The Historical Reason:

While what you describe is kind of true, the true historical reason is that Harvard started doing it that way a long time ago, when there was a whole lot more common law and a whole lot less statutory law than there is now.