Dear 1L, Beware of this mistake I made when I wrote my very first memo. It has been 33 years, but it STILL bothers me when I think about.

I based my whole analysis on what the courts SAID about my issue instead of focusing on which side had WON in each of the cases.

Be careful!

👉 A case can contain language that seems helpful to your position when the case itself actually HURTS your position.

E.g.: Suppose you predict that the defendant in your hypo will defeat a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

You find “Doe v. Snow,” where the court says:

"The elements of IIED are rarely satisfied."

Great! That sounds helpful to your defendant.

But wait.

—What if the plaintiff in “Doe” actually WON?

—And what if the Doe facts are arguably analogous to your facts?

Then the “Doe” case hurts your defendant, regardless of how helpful that quotation sounds.

So when you're analyzing cases for your memo, focus on ONLY these 2 things:

1: Which party actually won?

2: What FACTS—not court language—led to that party’s win?

The secret to the memo is comparing the facts in the helpful cases to the facts in your hypo.

Stay AWAY from relying on what courts say and focus on the facts, and you’ll avoid the terrible mistake I made!

💌 Amanda

#Dear1L

P.S. My 1L memo involved an IIED claim by a single mother whose nine-year-old daughter had been autopsied by mistake (and without authorization).

I still shudder when I think back to those facts, but I didn't understand why I’d bombed the memo until months later, when a dear 1L friend helped me to see the light.

I remain forever grateful. 🙏🏻