Dear 1L, I bombed my 1L fall memo.

Dear 1L, I bombed my 1L fall memo.

My task was to analyze whether a mother could bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

She wanted to sue the coroner who’d autopsied the wrong body (that of her nine‑year‑old daughter), where no autopsy was needed or authorized.

(I shudder to think back; the ghoulish facts have haunted me since.)

And the mistake I made was bad:

👉 I focused on what the courts SAID instead of how the courts RULED. 😯

In other words, I chased rhetorical flourishes, strong language, and “important statements” in the opinions, thinking those words controlled the outcome.

They didn’t.

I had fallen straight into a DICTA TRAP.

🔷 “Dicta” (from the Latin “obiter dictum”) just means an “aside”

—something said in a judge’s opinion that isn’t essential to deciding the case.

Dicta may sound elegant.
Dicta may even be persuasive.
But dicta is not the binding law.

So PLEASE make sure when reading the cases for your own memo that you steer clear of all dicta!

⬇️
 
Here’s the 3-KEY secret to avoiding a dicta trap:

🔑 Choose cases for your memo that have facts most like yours.

🔑 Compare the specific facts in those cases with the specific facts in your hypo. Get granular—down to the smallest details that might flip a result.

🔑 Don’t rely on what the courts say. Courts say a lot of things that don’t matter to the outcome. Stick to how the case actually came out (i.e., who won).

***
I didn’t learn these keys until months later, thanks to a kind 1L friend who let me into the secret.

I’ve never forgotten it—or her generosity.

Learn from my blunder early. Dicta can fascinate you, distract you, and destroy your analysis all at once.

Please don’t let my mistake happen to you.

💌 Amanda

#Dear1L