Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LEGAL WRITING
ROUGHING OUT THE ARGUMENT
KEY FACT:
• Are the facts that establish or satisfy the elements of a cause of action
and are necessary to prove or disprove a claim.
(https://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/1285439937_41
2639.pdf).
• As used in the book, rules identify the facts (the key fact) on which they
will operate or apply.
• In the example given in the book:
• In another example:
Any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent (Key
Fact) , be punished for theft.
Cesar took, with intent to gain, Mario’s cellphone from his desk when his back was turned and
without his consent. (Case Fact)
Crossing the red light is punishable by law, but crossing the yellow light does not amount to
crossing the red light (an interpretative rule that excludes crossing the yellow light from the
meaning of crossing the red light).
David actually crossed a yellow light, thus, he cannot be punished by law.
• The Key Fact “crossing the red light” is not found in the case of David.
• These arguments typify the classic categorical syllogism:
• 1. The statement of a rule that applies to a given fact or set of facts (the rule statement);
• 2. The statement of the fact of a particular case that opens up such case or closes it to the
application of the rule (the case fact statement);
• 3. The conclusion that the rule applies or does not apply to the particular case (the
conclusion statement)
CASE FACT
• the legally significant facts of a case that raise the legal question of how or whether
the law governing the dispute applies.
(https://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/1285439937_412639.pdf)
• For example:
“Crossing the red light is punishable by law” the Rule Statement
“Jose crossed the red light.” the Case Fact
“RULE” INCLUDES:
• 1. Constitutional Provisions
• 2. Statutory Provisions
• 3. Rules of Court Provisions
• It also include case laws or judicial precedents.
• And may also include widely accepted truths that derive from logic, common sense,
or even common experience.
ROUGHING OUT ARGUMENTS
If you were the counsel for Ronald, write in On the opposite column, write your counter-
the left column the argument your opponent argument:
can make out against your claim:
Applicable Rule: Although vaginal
lacerations are usually found in rape victims,
Applicable Rule: Vaginal lacerations they can also be found in consented sex with
are usually found in rape victims. a virgin.
Case Fact: Julia had vaginal lacerations. Case Fact: Julia was a virgin.
Conclusion: Therefore, she probably had
Conclusion: Therefore, lacerations found in here
been raped do not necessarily indicate rape.
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA
Because women will barely admit to But not when the woman’s testimony,
having been raped unless true, a like that of Julia, is inherently
rape victim’s testimony can stand incredible.
alone.
Absence of bruises on her body
despite rough grounds negates rape
by use of force.
Being a barrio woman, it is likely
that someone like Ronald walked
her home at that late hour.