Moot Court Basics
02.08.2019
I. Word List
Remember these are key words, that you will be using both in your written briefs and in your oral
arguments.
1. Binding
2. Persuasive
3. Holding or Ratio Decidendi
4. Dicta or Obiter Dicta
5. Precedent or Stare Decisis
6. Cause Title
7. Plaint
8. Plaintiff
9. Defendant
10.Petition
11.Petitioner
12.Respondent
13.Appeal
14.Appellant
15.Appellee
16.Majority Opinion
17.Minority Opinion or Dissenting Opinion
18.Concurring Opinion
19.Constitution
20.Statute
21.Case Law
22.Procedural History
23. Supreme Court
24. Jurisdiction
II. Concepts
A. Court Levels
B. Precedent and Stare Decisis:
Precedent literally means that a particular question has already been dealt with by the court on a
previous occasion in a similar fact situation.
Stare Decisis is a Latin term which essentially means that the courts should decide according to
precedent.
You can think of these concepts either vertically or horizontally.
Vertical:
The idea of thinking about precedent vertically respects the hierarchy of the court system, by giving
deference to the superior courts. Based on which court decided that question determines whether
that previous decision is binding or not. The word ‘binding’ means that the Court is bound to follow
the earlier decision and cannot deviate from it.
Horizontally:
Thinking about precedent horizontally means that the Court basically follows its own previous
decisions with the purpose of maintaining stability in the law of the land, and maintaining the
institutional integrity of the Court. Because it is generally a bad idea for the Courts to keep going
back and forth on a single point of law, courts exercise self-restraint by not deviating from a legal
position that has already been settled by it. The Court may of course, in exceptional circumstances
overrule its own decision, but only when circumstances are vastly different from those which were
prevalent when the question was first decided. The horizontal idea is most often explored in the
context of the Supreme Court.
C. Sources of Authority/Law:
The sources of law are broadly categorized into:
1. Constitution
2. Statues
3. Case Law
4. Executive Orders
5. Regulations
We are concerned primarily with the first three. The first important thing for our purpose is the
relationship between the Constitution and statutes. All you need to remember is that the US
Constitution is the highest law of the land. Statutes enacted by the Congress or by the State
Legislatures must be in conformity with it. If a law violates a principle of the Constitution, the courts
have the power to strike down that law.
Second, disputes brought before the court and decided by it, become case law. The courts through
case law, interpret laws, both within the Constitution and statutes, and then apply them to the
disputes at hand.
For the purposes of the moot, you will be reading the First and Fourth Amendment to the US
Constitution and the case law that interprets its application in varying fact situations.
D. Holding or Ratio Decidendi v. Dicta or Obiter Dicta
The holding is the part of the judgment that is necessary to the result of the dispute. The dicta is
everything else. Dicta can include statements where the judge hypothesizes about situations that
are not in issue before the court.
Facts: A kicked B in the classroom while school was in session.
Rule: In an action for battery B must show that A was at fault and the act was against order and
decorum.
Court Statement 1: The act was in the classroom, after it had been called to order. The kick disrupted
the environment, hurt B and was therefore unlawful and A’s fault.
Court Statement 2: If this happened in the playground, where kicking is commonplace, it may not
have been unlawful.
E. Reading a Case:
While reading a case, identify the following
1. Facts
2. Procedural History
3. Rule
4. Holding
5. Reasoning
Now, when identifying the above, make sure you cover the following:
1. The Court:
Know the court whose judgment you are now reading, as well as, if applicable, the courts which
dealt with the dispute previously.
2. The Cause Title/Parties to the Dispute:
First, identify the original position of the parties i.e. at the time of filing of the dispute. Here you are
looking to identify who the Plaintiff is (person who filed) and who the Defendant is (person against
whom the case is filed). You are also looking for the number of plaintiffs and defendants. Sometimes
there will be multiple plaintiffs and defendants in the same case and it is important to know them
all. Second, identify what their position is in the present Court. Here you are looking to identify the
Plaintiff and the Defendant as either the Appellant or Appellee, or the Petitioner or the Respondent.
Think of the example
District Court: A (Plaintiff) v. B (Defendant) (B loses)(B appeals)
High Court: B (Appellant) v. A (Appellee) (A loses)
Supreme Court: A (Petitioner) v. B (Respondent)
3. Summary
If available, read the short summary of the case in order to understand the direction the case will
take.
4. Precedent
Locate all the law applicable, previous cases cited and their treatment. Has the court abided by
precedent? Has it distinguished precedent? Distinguishing precedent implies that the Court states
that the facts of the earlier judgment are materially different from the one at hand. It will therefore
state that the precedent in question does not apply to the facts of the case before it.
F. Timeline and Fact Segregation:
There are many ways and strategies to approach a moot problem. However, the starting point is
always the facts.
When it comes to deconstructing facts, as you come across more and more problems, you will come
up with a method that works best for you. As for now, the following two strategies will be helpful.
1. Timeline:
Creating a chronological series of the facts helps you to understand exactly how it all played out. It is
absolutely essential to know what comes first and what follows as your entire argument will at times
be based on the order of occurrences.
2. Fact Segregation
This entails looking at both sides of the case and deciding which facts are favorable for either. This
sets up the factual basis for the law you are going to use. It also helps you see what is coming from
the other side and how you must account for it in your side’s argument. Never ignore facts that are
not favorable to your side. Pre-empt it and find a solution to it.
Sometimes a particular fact can be interpreted to the benefit of both sides. Here you will possibly
have to make an argument of which interpretation is more likely than the other.
Due to a public transportation strike, private buses are ferrying passengers through Gotham.
Taking the opportunity to help as many people as possible, the bus driver, Bruce, and the
conductor, Wayne, decide to allow passengers to sit on the roof of the bus. However, they charge
only half the ticket price for sitting on the roof. Clark boards the bus and takes a seat on the roof.
In the course of the journey, Bruce’s confidence grows (the roads being largely empty) and he
begins to speed up. Clark, on the roof, enjoying the breeze but cramping from the uncomfortable
seating raises his arms to stretch them out. At that very moment, the bus happened to be passing
a tree, and an unusually low hanging branch meets Clark’s arm with considerable force, owing to
the speed of the bus. He breaks his arm, and sues Bruce and Wayne for negligence.
G. Court Opinions
1. Majority Opinions
This is the judgment of the Court. A literal majority of the court has to decide in favor of a particular
issue for it to become the majority opinion. At the Supreme Court usually, one judge is appointed by
the rest of the majority to write the opinion for the court. These opinions are binding for the
purpose of future cases.
2. Concurring Opinion
This is an opinion by a judge who agrees with the outcome of the case but does not agree with, in
whole or in part, with the reasons for that outcome.
3. Minority Opinion or Dissenting Opinion
This is the opinion where the judge does not agree with the outcome. These are not binding on
future cases. These are however, important so that you know what are the other arguments that
made sense to this particular judge.
