Scene:

[cue music: Beethoven, Symphony 7, Movement 2]

A hot summer Saturday. Law School Ninja, disheveled and visibly discombobulated, is sitting in her living room on her favorite chaise lounge with her Torts casebook, trying to do the reading that is assigned for her first day of classes, Monday, two days hence, at 8:00 a.m. Accompanying Law School Ninja on her chaise lounge are her cat and her dog, who are each angling for the best seat in the house — directly on top of the casebook. Unbeknownst to Law School Ninja, an army of midgets wielding weapons fashioned from crunchy beetle shells and hairy tarantula legs amasses just two blocks away. Vultures circle overhead, storm clouds gather, and hyenas close in as Law School Ninja commences the following monologue:

Okay, here’s my first case to brief: Garratt v. Dailey. Let’s see here… there’s the citation. Ha! That was easy enough! I’ll just fill in all the little categories that they gave me at orientation, and that’ll be that. Simple!

Facts are next. So this little kid pulled a chair out from under a lady in somebody’s back yard. Uncool. Oh, the lady fell and broke her hip as a result. Doubly uncool. Kids these days have absolutely no manners. Plaintiff sues the kid for battery.

Okay, next is the procedural history. Well, it looks like the trial court found for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed, seeking either $11,000 in damages or else a new trial altogether. Ha! Ha ha! I don’t get what the controversy is about briefing cases. This is just like fallin’ off a log.

Now for the issue. They tell us issue spotting is crucial, so I’ve gotta be sure to get this right. Oh, look! Here it is! The issue regards the intent of the little boy. Did he know that moving the chair would cause injury to the plaintiff? Is that right? ‘Cause if he did know that, then he’d be liable for battery.

So the holding is supposed to answer the question posed in the issue. Alrighty. Just have to find that… answer… hmmm… well, where is it… huh? The Washington Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the boy had such substantial knowledge… ?? Okay, so um, but what do I put for the holding? ‘Cause there really isn’t one. I mean, they made no decision about this. They just punted it back to the trial court. So what do I put in that HOLDING section of my case brief??? Hello? The holding can’t be “remanded,” can it? That’s more like the disposition of the case. Argh. Must consult the Tweeps.

[1.5 solid hours of tweeting]

Whew! That was some intense research! According to the Twitterverse, the holding is what would have been determinative had the appeals court not remanded. Does that make sense? It did to me, earlier. I hope it still makes sense to me on Monday.

Anyway, that misses the whole point of the case, which is trying to establish the concept of intent. Hey. What the… wait a minute… did I just spend hours and hours today trying to figure out what to put in one stupid little category of this crappy briefing template that they gave me at orientation, which distracted me from seeing the real point of the case? Did I just sit here and do exactly what everybody’s been telling me not to do, which is to get caught up in the minutiae of case briefing? Nuh-uh. No way.

[coyotes howl menacingly in the distance]

Please tell me NO.

[midget army advances]

NOOOOOO!!!!!

[fade to black]

Thus ends the sad saga of Law School Ninja and the Stupid, Crappy, Time-Sucking Case Briefing Template. It’s a tragic tale, but instructive. Learn ye from Law School Ninja’s mistakes. Put down your school-distributed, crappy, sucky case briefing templates! Join me in a fight against conventional wisdom! Take back your wasted hours as your own! It will be a fight to the death — nay, a fight to the pain!