如何阅读英美判例
英美法律文化案例分析(3篇)
第1篇一、背景介绍1994年，美国加利福尼亚州发生了一起震惊全美的谋杀案，即“辛普森杀妻案”。
案发后，凶手被指控为美国著名橄榄球运动员奥伦·辛普森。
然而，在经过长达数月的审理后，辛普森被判无罪释放。
这一结果引发了公众的广泛争议，同时也引发了人们对英美法律文化的关注。
二、案件经过1. 案发经过1994年6月12日，美国洛杉矶一名女子在自家门口被残忍杀害。
警方在现场发现了凶手的血迹和凶器，并在附近找到了一辆被丢弃的汽车，汽车的车主为奥伦·辛普森。
随后，辛普森被警方逮捕。
2. 审判过程辛普森案件在洛杉矶高等法院审理。
在审判过程中，控方提出了大量证据，包括凶器、血迹、目击证人等，力证辛普森为凶手。
然而，辛普森的辩护律师团队则从证据链的薄弱环节入手，质疑证据的真实性，并试图证明辛普森在案发时不在犯罪现场。
在长达数月的审理过程中，法庭上出现了大量争议。
辩护律师团队运用英美法律文化中的无罪推定原则，即“疑罪从无”，成功地将辛普森的无罪判决推向了高潮。
3. 最终判决1995年10月3日，洛杉矶高等法院宣布辛普森无罪。
这一判决引发了公众的广泛质疑和抗议。
尽管辛普森被判无罪，但他在此之后一直受到公众的谴责和抵制。
三、案例分析1. 英美法律文化中的无罪推定原则英美法律文化中，无罪推定原则是核心原则之一。
该原则强调，在未经法庭审理之前，任何人都应被视为无罪。
在辛普森案件中，辩护律师团队充分利用了这一原则，从证据链的薄弱环节入手，成功地将辛普森的无罪判决推向了高潮。
2. 英美法律文化中的证据标准英美法律文化中，证据标准较高。
在刑事案件中，控方需要提供确凿的证据，以证明被告人有罪。
在辛普森案件中，尽管控方提出了大量证据，但辩护律师团队通过质疑证据的真实性和可靠性，使法庭对证据产生了怀疑。
3. 英美法律文化中的陪审团制度英美法律文化中的陪审团制度在辛普森案件中发挥了重要作用。
陪审团由普通公民组成，他们代表社会公众的利益，对案件进行审理。
英美法案例研读全程指南
英美法案例研读全程指南引言：英美法案例研读是法学学习中必不可少的一部分，通过研读案例可以更好地理解法律原理和司法解释，提高法学知识的应用能力。
本文将就英美法案例研读全程提供一些指南，帮助读者更好地进行案例研究。
一、选择合适的案例1.关注最新案例：选择最新的案例可以了解最新的法律动向和司法解释，对于跟进法律发展非常有帮助。
2.选择有争议的案例：争议案例往往有不同的观点和判决结果，可以让读者思考和分析不同的法律解释和逻辑。
二、案例阅读前的准备工作1.了解基本背景：阅读案例前，了解相关的法律背景和相关的法律条款，可以更好地理解案件的含义和法律适用。
2.阅读案例摘要：先阅读案例的摘要，了解案件的基本事实和争议点，有助于读者更好地把握案件的重点和关键问题。
三、案例阅读的技巧和方法1.分段阅读：将案例分成段落，逐段阅读，有助于理清案件的逻辑和论证过程。
2.标记关键信息：在案例中标记关键的法律条款、法庭意见和判决结果等重要信息，方便后续的分析和总结。
3.理解法律推理：案例中的法律推理是非常重要的一部分，需要仔细理解法官的论证过程和判决理由，从中学习和借鉴法律推理的方法和思路。
4.分析不同观点：案例中常常有不同观点的法官意见，可以分析不同观点之间的差异和论证逻辑，加深对法律问题的理解和思考。
5.总结案例要点：阅读完案例后，总结案件的要点和争议问题，可以通过写笔记的方式进行总结，有助于加深对案例的理解和记忆。
四、案例分析和讨论1.讨论争议问题：针对案例中的争议问题，可以与同学或老师进行讨论，交流不同的观点和看法，拓宽思路和视野。
2.分析判决结果：分析案件的判决结果对于理解法律适用和司法解释非常重要，可以分析判决结果的合理性和对法律发展的影响。
3.参考其他案例：可以参考其他相关的案例，比较不同案例的判决结果和法律逻辑，加深对法律问题的理解和认识。
五、撰写案例评论或分析报告1.准确表达观点：在撰写案例评论或分析报告时，要准确表达自己的观点和看法，并用法律理论和案例事实进行支持和论证。
如何阅读英美判例
一、阅读判决书的意义：英美法的精华部分深藏于法官的判决意见里，通过阅读和分析法院判决书了解他们的法律推理和解释方法，提高我们的法律思维水平和解决法律问题的能力。
判决书在英语里用不同的词语表达，如opinion, decision, judgement等，我们翻译为“法官意见” 、“判决意见” 、“判决”等。
由于英美法院的判决书以说理充分、分析透彻的特点见长，所以在篇幅上都比较冗长，因此我们在阅读时，一要有耐心，二要抓要点。
那么怎么抓要点呢，这就需要我们对判决书的文体结构特点有一个概括地了解。
二、判决书的文体结构：（以美国为例）（一）抬头部分（Heading）1案件名称：主要表明当事方，但是有别于我国通常在案件名称内标明案由。
（如：“唐某杀人案” [刑事]，或“星星公司诉月亮公司担保合同纠纷案”[民事]）2 索引信息：例如该案件出自哪本案例集或判例汇编，第几卷，第几页等。
3 审理法院：在美国，因各州、审级不同而各有不同。
4 判决日期下面我们以“布什诉戈尔” 案Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) 为例作一说明：Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)（原告）诉（被告）（审理法院）（判决日所属年份）注意：① U.S. 指美国联邦最高法院(The Supreme Court of United States)。
② Plaintiff的位置也可能是appelant(上诉人), defendent的位置也可能appellee（被上诉人）。
初审案件：原告plaintiff, 被告：defendant中级上诉法院：原告appellant,被告appellee最高上诉法院：上诉方：petitioner,被上诉方：respondent（二）事实部分1．案件法律程序简介（procedual history）在事实部分之前，初审案件通常要简要交代案件当事人（parties）、案由（Cause of action）、起诉以及受理情况；上诉案件通常介绍一审案件的判决结果、当事人上诉及二审法院受理情况、二审法院判决结果。
英美法案例研读全程指南
•《英美法案例研读全程指南》•作者简介何主宇，1990年毕业于对外经济贸易大学国际经济法系，获法学学士学位。
1994年赴美留学，先后获法律博士学位（J．D．）和人力资源与工业关系学硕士学位（MAHR／IR）。
1999年7月通过美国纽约州律师资格考试，2002年7月回国后受聘为南开大学法学院副教授，现在美国纽约从事法律研究和工作。
•内容简介本书是将英美案例教学的核心内容简要但却全面地介绍给国内法律界，主要用于满足国际法、英美法和其他涉外法律教学的需要，同时也适用于法律实务界培训涉外律师进行英文法律文书写作和国外法律比较研究。
本书亦总结了作者在国内三年英美法教学的经验，特别针对国内法学院学生在学习英美案例时可能遇到的各种问题作了一一解答。
阅读纯英文的英美法案例一直是中国法学院学生的难题、法学教育国际化的屏障，也是涉外律师技能提升的瓶颈。
本书作者以其在国内外多年的律师从业经验和法律英语教学心得撰写本书，旨在帮助读者快速掌握英美法案例的精髓和要领，引领读者理解和分析原汁原味的英美法案例，最终达到学以致用的理想效果。
所有可能成为阅读障碍的难点问题都配有中文注释逐步剖析适用于每一个英美法案例的基本结构全面介绍案例中常用的法律术语及缩略语生动诠释案例辨析技术的奥妙及运用精选十大典型案例供读者细细研习•前言•第一节案例的基本结构（The Basic Structure of Court Opinions ）•一、判例的名称或抬头（Case Name or Caption）•二、案例编号（Case Number or Citation）•三、判例总结（Syllabus or Prefatory Statement）•四、分类标题及法律摘要（Topics and Headnotes）•五、钥匙序号和定位数字（Key Number and Location Number）•六、代理律师的姓名（Names of the Attornevs Wh0 Represented the Parties）•七、主审法官（Presiding Judges）•八、法庭判决意见（The Opinion Begins）•九、六步案例学习法（Case study—six Easv Steps）•第二节引文标注（Citation）•一、概述（Introduction）•二、英美法国家判例的引文标注特点（Special Features）•三、引文标注的常识铺垫（Common Sense）•四、成文法律的引用（Statutory Citation）•五、判例的引用（Case Citation）•六、引用二级法律依据（Citation for Secondary Authoritv）•第三节英美法案例中常用的法律术语（The Key Terms）•一、民事责任（Civil Libability for the Accident）•二、刑事指控（The Criminal Charges）•第四节案例中常见的缩略语（Case Terms Abbreviated）•一、常见拉丁缩略语（Latin Terms）•二、案例中的常用导引字符（Introductory Signals）•三、与仲裁案例有关的缩略语（Arbitral Reporters）•四、案例名称中常用的缩写（Case Names）•五、法院名称缩写（Court Names）•六、有关法庭文件的缩写（Court Documents）•七、案例中常用的解释性术语之缩写（Explanatory Phrases）•八、与立法资料有关的缩略语（Legislative Documents）•九、美国判例中常用的地理名词缩写（Geographical Terms）•十、法官和官员名称缩写（Judges and Officials）•十一、普通法案例在援引法律机构、法学院和法律期刊时所使用的缩写（Commonly Cited Organizations，Law Schools and Periodicals）•十二、普通法案例在援引出版物时所使用的缩写（Publishing Terms）•十三、条目和标识的缩写（Subdivisions）•十四、其他（Other TerlTlS）•第五节案例摘要（Case Briefing）•一、如何制作研究性案例摘要（Case Briefs for Research）•二、课堂案例摘要（Case Briefor Class）•第六节案例辨析技术（The Techniques of Distinguishing Cases）•一、何为判例辨析（The Definition）•二、判例辨析技术所适用的对象（Cases Distinguishable）•三、为什么要辨析判例（Why to Distinguish）•四、判例辨析技术（The Techniques）•五、判例辨析评估（Pros and Cons）•六、判例辨析是英美法法系法学教育的一个重点（The Im portance）•七、判例辨析中常用的术语解释（Key Terms）•……•第七节案例的网络数据库使用（Cases and the Internet）•第八节案例导读（Cases to Horn Your Reading Skills）•参考书目（Bibliography）。
英美判决书简介和结构
判决书的种类：将法院判决结果，以文字记载成为书面司法文书，这种书面司法文书称为“判决书(Reports )”，判决后的案件一般通称为“案例(Case)”。
判决书的种类有两种，一为官方判决书( Official Report )：法院将判决结果印成书面判决。
一为非官方判决书(Unofficial Report )：由民间出版商将判决整理后出版成册，容除了判决容外，书商请专家整理并加上与本案有关的注解、法律条文、相关法院判决等，参考价值大于官方判决书。
官方判决书例如，美国联邦最高法院判决集，称为“Uni ted States Reports ”(简称U.S.)；各州最高法院也会出版判决集，如密西根州最高法院判决集，称为“ Michigan Reports ”(简称“ Mich. ”)；有些州第二审法院也出版判决集，如密西根州二审法院判决集，称为“ Michigan Appeals Reports ”(简称“ Mich. App. ”)。
美国现有3个比较大的法律图书出版商出版非官方判决书，第一家为“西方图书公司”( West Publishing Company )，第二家为“律师出版公司”( Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company )，第三家为“学徒殿堂图书公司”( Prentice Hall Inc. )。
例如西方图书公司整理出版《联邦最高法院判决集》，称为“ Supreme Court Report ”，(简称S.Ct.)；律师出版公司出版《联邦最高法院判决集》，称为“ Uni ted States Reports Lawyers Edition ”，(简称L.Ed)；这两套书是将联邦最高法院判决累积一段时间后，才出版成册。
有些判决集出版速度较快，一个星期整理出版一次；也有当天下午出版还未登录案号的当天判决，如“ United States Law Weeks (U.S.L.W. )”，“ United States Supreme Court Bulletin (S.Ct.Bull.C.C.H. )”等。
英美法律公正案例分析(3篇)
第1篇一、案件背景2002年，美国宾夕法尼亚州费城市发生了一起严重的交通事故，造成一人死亡，多人受伤。
经过调查，警方发现肇事司机李·安德鲁·尤德尔（Lee Andrew Yoder）在事故发生前已经连续多日疲劳驾驶。
根据美国法律，疲劳驾驶属于危险驾驶行为，因此警方对尤德尔提出了多项指控。
二、案件争议1. 疲劳驾驶的法律认定案件的核心争议在于疲劳驾驶的法律认定。
在美国法律体系中，并没有明确规定疲劳驾驶的具体标准。
因此，在审判过程中，法官和陪审团需要根据案件事实和相关证据来判断尤德尔是否构成疲劳驾驶。
2. 刑罚的公正性尤德尔被判处有期徒刑十年，罚款一万美元。
然而，部分公众和媒体认为这一判决过于严厉，对尤德尔的处罚过重。
他们认为，尤德尔的行为虽然危险，但并非故意为之，且事故中只有一人死亡，其他人受伤程度较轻。
三、案件分析1. 疲劳驾驶的法律认定在美国法律体系中，疲劳驾驶属于危险驾驶行为。
根据美国交通法规，驾驶员在连续驾驶四小时后，必须停车休息至少20分钟，以避免疲劳驾驶。
然而，由于缺乏明确的疲劳驾驶标准，法官和陪审团在审理案件时，需要根据以下证据来判断：（1）驾驶员的睡眠时间：如果驾驶员在事故发生前未得到足够的睡眠，可能构成疲劳驾驶。
（2）驾驶员的驾驶状态：如果驾驶员在事故发生前表现出注意力不集中、反应迟钝等症状，可能构成疲劳驾驶。
（3）事故现场的证据：如车辆行驶轨迹、刹车痕迹等，可以证明驾驶员是否处于疲劳状态。
在本案中，警方调查发现尤德尔在事故发生前连续多日未得到充分休息，且在事故发生时表现出注意力不集中、反应迟钝等症状。
因此，法官和陪审团认定尤德尔构成疲劳驾驶。
2. 刑罚的公正性关于尤德尔的刑罚是否公正，可以从以下几个方面进行分析：（1）事故的严重程度：在本案中，事故造成一人死亡，多人受伤，属于严重的交通事故。
因此，对尤德尔的处罚相对较重。
（2）尤德尔的犯罪情节：尤德尔在事故发生前连续多日疲劳驾驶，且未采取有效措施避免事故发生。
英美法律案例的研讨(3篇)
第1篇一、案件背景2000年，美国纽约州对微软公司提起诉讼，指控微软公司垄断计算机操作系统市场，违反了美国反垄断法。
此案引起了广泛关注，成为美国乃至全球反垄断法领域的典型案例。
二、案件争议焦点1. 微软公司是否构成垄断？2. 如果微软公司构成垄断，其垄断行为是否违反了美国反垄断法？3. 如何界定计算机操作系统市场的相关市场？三、案件审理过程1. 地区法院审理纽约州地方法院于2001年11月作出判决，认为微软公司构成垄断，并对其处以巨额罚款。
微软公司不服，向联邦巡回上诉法院提起上诉。
2. 联邦巡回上诉法院审理2004年6月，联邦巡回上诉法院作出判决，撤销了地区法院的判决，认为微软公司没有构成垄断。
然而，法院同时指出，微软公司的捆绑销售行为可能违反了反垄断法。
3. 美国最高法院审理微软公司不服联邦巡回上诉法院的判决，向美国最高法院提起上诉。
2007年6月，美国最高法院作出判决，认为微软公司的捆绑销售行为没有违反反垄断法。
四、案件判决结果美国最高法院的判决认定，微软公司的捆绑销售行为没有违反反垄断法。
此案成为美国反垄断法历史上的一个重要里程碑。
五、案例研讨1. 微软公司是否构成垄断？微软公司拥有全球最大的计算机操作系统市场份额，其市场份额一度达到90%以上。
从市场份额的角度来看，微软公司可以被认为是一个垄断企业。
然而，美国最高法院的判决认为，市场份额本身并不足以证明垄断。
2. 捆绑销售行为是否违反反垄断法？美国最高法院认为，微软公司的捆绑销售行为没有违反反垄断法。
这是因为，微软公司并没有强制消费者购买捆绑产品，消费者有权选择购买或不购买。
此外，微软公司的捆绑销售行为也没有对市场竞争产生实质性的负面影响。
3. 案件对反垄断法的影响纽约州诉微软公司案对美国反垄断法产生了深远的影响。
首先，此案明确了市场份额并非垄断的唯一判断标准，反垄断法应关注企业是否滥用市场支配地位。
其次，此案强调了反垄断法在保护消费者权益和促进市场竞争方面的作用。
如何阅读英美判决书
H OW TO R EAD A L EGAL O PINIONA G UIDE FOR N EW L AW S TUDENTSOrin S. KerrCopyright © 2007 Orin S. KerrPublished by The Green Bag, Inc., in cooperation with the George Mason University School of Law.11 G REEN B AG 2D 51H OW TO R EAD AL EGAL O PINIONA G UIDE FOR N EW L AW S TUDENTS Orin S. KerrThis essay is designed to help new law students prepare for thefirst few weeks of class. It explains what judicial opinions are, how they are structured, and what law students should lookfor when reading them.I. W HAT ’S IN A L EGAL O PINION ?hen two people disagree and that disagreement leads to a lawsuit, the lawsuit will sometimes end with a ruling by a judge in favor of one side. The judge will explain the ruling in a written document referred to as an “opinion.” The opinion explains what the case is about, discusses the relevant legal principles, and then applies the law to the facts to reach a ruling in favor of one side and against the other.Modern judicial opinions reflect hundreds of years of history and practice. They usually follow a simple and predictable formula. This Orin Kerr is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. This essay can be freely distributed for non-commercial uses under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. For the terms of the license, visit /licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode.WOrin S. Kerr52 11 G REEN B AG 2Dsection takes you through the basic formula. It starts with the intro-ductory materials at the top of an opinion and then moves on to the body of the opinion.The CaptionThe first part of the case is the title of the case, known as the “cap-tion.” Examples include Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona . The caption usually tells you the last names of the person who brought the lawsuit and the person who is being sued. These two sides are often referred to as the “parties” or as the “litigants” in the case. For example, if Ms. Smith sues Mr. Jones, the case caption may be Smith v. Jones (or, depending on the court, Jones v. Smith ). In criminal law, cases are brought by government prosecutors on behalf of the government itself. This means that the government is the named party. For example, if the federal government charges John Doe with a crime, the case caption will be United States v. Doe . If a state brings the charges instead, the caption will be State v. Doe , People v. Doe , or Commonwealth v. Doe , depending on the practices of that state.1The Case CitationBelow the case name you will find some letters and numbers. These letters and numbers are the legal citation for the case. A citation tells you the name of the court that decided the case, the law book in which the opinion was published, and the year in which the court decided the case. For example, “U.S. Supreme Court, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)” refers to a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1988 that appears in Volume 485 of the United States Reports starting at page 759.The Author of the OpinionThe next information is the name of the judge who wrote the opin-ion. Most opinions assigned in law school were issued by courts 1 English criminal cases normally will be Rex v. Doe or Regina v. Doe . Rex and Regina aren’t the victims: the words are Latin for “King” and “Queen.” During the reign of a King, English courts use “Rex”; during the reign of a Queen, they switch to “Regina.”How to Read a Legal OpinionA UTUMN 2007 53with multiple judges. The name tells you which judge wrote that particular opinion. In older cases, the opinion often simply states a last name followed by the initial “J.” No, judges don’t all have the first initial “J.” The letter stands for “Judge” or “Justice,” depending on the court. On occasion, the opinion will use the Latin phrase “per curiam” instead of a judge’s name. Per curiam means “by the court.” It signals that the opinion reflects a common view among all the judges rather than the writings of a specific judge.The Facts of the CaseNow let’s move on to the opinion itself. The first part of the body of the opinion presents the facts of the case. In other words, what happened? The facts might be that Andy pulled out a gun and shot Bob. Or maybe Fred agreed to give Sally $100 and then changed his mind. Surprisingly, there are no particular rules for what facts a judge must include in the fact section of an opinion. Sometimes the fact sections are long, and sometimes they are short. Sometimes they are clear and accurate, and other times they are vague or in-complete. Most discussions of the facts also cover the “procedural history” of the case. The procedural history explains how the legal dispute worked its way through the legal system to the court that is issuing the opinion. It will include various motions, hearings, and trials that occurred after the case was initially filed. Your civil procedure class is all about that kind of stuff; you should pay very close attention to the procedural history of cases when you read assignments for your civil procedure class. The procedural history of cases usually will be less important when you read a case for your other classes.The Law of the CaseAfter the opinion presents the facts, it will then discuss the law. Many opinions present the law in two stages. The first stage dis-cusses the general principles of law that are relevant to cases such as the one the court is deciding. This section might explore the history of a particular field of law or may include a discussion of past cases (known as “precedents”) that are related to the case the court is de-Orin S. Kerr5411 G REEN B AG 2D ciding. This part of the opinion gives the reader background to help understand the context and significance of the court’s decision. The second stage of the legal section applies the general legal principles to the particular facts of the dispute. As you might guess, this part is in many ways the heart of the opinion: It gets to the bottom line of why the court is ruling for one side and against the other.Concurring and/or Dissenting OpinionsMost of the opinions you read as a law student are “majority” opin-ions. When a group of judges get together to decide a case, they vote on which side should win and also try to agree on a legal ra-tionale to explain why that side has won. A majority opinion is an opinion joined by the majority of judges on that court. Although most decisions are unanimous, some cases are not. Some judges may disagree and will write a separate opinion offering a different approach. Those opinions are called “concurring opinions” or “dis-senting opinions,” and they appear after the majority opinion. A “concurring opinion” (sometimes just called a “concurrence”) ex-plains a vote in favor of the winning side but based on a different legal rationale. A “dissenting opinion” (sometimes just called a “dis-sent”) explains a vote in favor of the losing side.II. C OMMON L EGAL T ERMSF OUND IN O PINIONSow that you know what’s in a legal opinion, it’s time to learn some of the common words you’ll find inside them. But first a history lesson, for reasons that should be clear in a minute.In 1066, William the Conqueror came across the English Chan-nel from what is now France and conquered the land that is today called England. The conquering Normans spoke French and the de-feated Saxons spoke Old English. The Normans took over the court system, and their language became the language of the law. For sev-eral centuries after the French-speaking Normans took over Eng-land, lawyers and judges in English courts spoke in French. When English courts eventually returned to using English, they continued to use many French words.NHow to Read a Legal OpinionA UTUMN 2007 55Why should you care about this ancient history? The American colonists considered themselves Englishmen, so they used the Eng-lish legal system and adopted its language. This means that Ameri-can legal opinions today are littered with weird French terms. Ex-amples include plaintiff, defendant, tort, contract, crime, judge, attorney, counsel, court, verdict, party, appeal, evidence, and jury. These words are the everyday language of the American legal sys-tem. And they’re all from the French, brought to you by William the Conqueror in 1066.This means that when you read a legal opinion, you’ll come across a lot of foreign-sounding words to describe the court system. You need to learn all of these words eventually; you should read cases with a legal dictionary nearby and should look up every word you don’t know. But this section will give you a head start by intro-ducing you to some of the most common words, many of which (but not all) are French in origin.Types of Disputes and the Names of ParticipantsThere are two basic kinds of legal disputes: civil and criminal. In a civil case, one person files a lawsuit against another asking the court to order the other side to pay him money or to do or stop doing something. An award of money is called “damages” and an order to do something or to refrain from doing something is called an “in-junction.” The person bringing the lawsuit is known as the “plaintiff” and the person sued is called the “defendant.”In criminal cases, there is no plaintiff and no lawsuit. The role of a plaintiff is occupied by a government prosecutor. Instead of filing a lawsuit (or equivalently, “suing” someone), the prosecutor files criminal “charges.” Instead of asking for damages or an injunction, the prosecutor asks the court to punish the individual through either jail time or a fine. The government prosecutor is often referred to as “the state,” “the prosecution,” or simply “the government.” The person charged is called the defendant, just like the person sued in a civil case.In legal disputes, each party ordinarily is represented by a law-yer. Legal opinions use several different words for lawyers, includ-Orin S. Kerr56 11 G REEN B AG 2Ding “attorney” and “counsel.” There are some historical differences among these terms, but for the last century or so they have all meant the same thing. When a lawyer addresses a judge in court, she will always address the judge as “your honor,” just like lawyers do in the movies. In legal opinions, however, judges will usually refer to themselves as “the Court.”Terms in Appellate LitigationMost opinions that you read in law school are appellate opinions, which means that they decide the outcome of appeals. An “appeal” is a legal proceeding that considers whether another court’s legal deci-sion was right or wrong. After a court has ruled for one side, the losing side may seek review of that decision by filing an appeal be-fore a higher court. The original court is usually known as the trial court, because that’s where the trial occurs if there is one. The higher court is known as the appellate or appeals court, as it is the court that hears the appeal.A single judge presides over trial court proceedings, but appel-late cases are decided by panels of several judges. For example, in the federal court system, run by the United States government, a single trial judge known as a District Court judge oversees the trial stage. Cases can be appealed to the next higher court, the Court of Appeals, where cases are decided by panels of three judges known as Circuit Court judges. A side that loses before the Circuit Court can seek review of that decision at the United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court cases are decided by all nine judges. Su-preme Court judges are called Justices instead of judges; there is one “Chief Justice” and the other eight are just plain “Justices” (technically they are “Associate Justices,” but everyone just calls them “Justices”).During the proceedings before the higher court, the party that lost at the original court and is therefore filing the appeal is usually known as the “appellant.” The party that won in the lower court and must defend the lower court’s decision is known as the “appellee” (accent on the last syllable). Some older opinions may refer to the appellant as the “plaintiff in error” and the appellee as the “defendantHow to Read a Legal OpinionA UTUMN 2007 57in error.” Finally, some courts label an appeal as a “petition,” and require the losing party to petition the higher court for relief. In these cases, the party that lost before the lower court and is filing the petition for review is called the “petitioner.” The party that won before the lower court and is responding to the petition in the higher court is called the “respondent.”Confused yet? You probably are, but don’t worry. You’ll read so many cases in the next few weeks that you’ll get used to all of this very soon.III. W HAT Y OU N EED TO L EARN FROMR EADING A C ASEkay, so you’ve just read a case for class. You think you under-stand it, but you’re not sure if you learned what your profes-sor wanted you to learn. Here is what professors want students to know after reading a case assigned for class:Know the FactsLaw professors love the facts. When they call on students in class, they typically begin by asking students to state the facts of a particu-lar case. Facts are important because law is often highly fact-sensitive, which is a fancy way of saying that the proper legal out-come depends on the exact details of what happened. If you don’t know the facts, you can’t really understand the case and can’t un-derstand the law.Most law students don’t appreciate the importance of the facts when they read a case. Students think, “I’m in law school, not fact school; I want to know what the law is, not just what happened in this one case.” But trust me: the facts are really important.2 2 If you don’t believe me, you should take a look at a few law school exams. It turns out that the most common form of law school exam question presents a long description of a very particular set of facts. It then asks the student to “spot” and analyze the legal issues presented by those facts. These exam questions are known as “issue-spotters,” as they test the student’s ability to understand the facts and spot the legal issues they raise. As you might imagine, doing well on an issue-OOrin S. Kerr58 11 G REEN B AG 2D Know the Specific Legal Arguments Made by the Parties Lawsuits are disputes, and judges only issue opinions when two par-ties to a dispute disagree on a particular legal question. This means that legal opinions focus on resolving the parties’ very specific dis-agreement. The lawyers, not the judges, take the lead role in fram-ing the issues raised by a case.In an appeal, for example, the lawyer for the appellant will ar-ticulate specific ways in which the lower court was wrong. The ap-pellate court will then look at those arguments and either agree or disagree. (Now you can understand why people pay big bucks for top lawyers; the best lawyers are highly skilled at identifying and articulating their arguments to the court.) Because the lawyers take the lead role in framing the issues, you need to understand exactly what arguments the two sides were making.Know the DispositionThe “disposition” of a case is the action the court took. It is often announced at the very end of the opinion. For example, an appeals court might “affirm” a lower court decision, upholding it, or it might “reverse” the decision, ruling for the other side. Alterna-tively, an appeals court might “vacate” the lower court decision, wiping the lower-court decision off the books, and then “remand” the case, sending it back to the lower court for further proceedings. For now, you should keep in mind that when a higher court “af-firms” it means that the lower court had it right (in result, if not in reasoning). Words like “reverse,” “remand,” and “vacate” means that the higher court though the lower court had it wrong.Understand the Reasoning of the Majority Opinion To understand the reasoning of an opinion, you should first identify the source of the law the judge applied. Some opinions interpret the Constitution, the founding charter of the government. Other cases spotter requires developing a careful and nuanced understanding of the impor-tance of the facts. The best way to prepare for that is to read the fact sections of your cases very carefully.How to Read a Legal OpinionA UTUMN 2007 59 interpret “statutes,” which is a fancy name for written laws passed by legislative bodies such as Congress. Still other cases interpret “the common law,” which is a term that usually refers to the body of prior case decisions that derive ultimately from pre-1776 English law that the Colonists brought over from England.3In your first year, the opinions that you read in your Torts, Con-tracts, and Property classes will mostly interpret the common law. Opinions in Criminal Law mostly interpret either the common law or statutes. Finally, opinions in your Civil Procedure casebook will mostly interpret statutory law or the Constitution. The source of law is very important because American law follows a clear hierar-chy. Constitutional rules trump statutory (statute-based) rules, and statutory rules trump common law rules.After you have identified the source of law, you should next identify the method of reasoning that the court used to justify its decision. When a case is governed by a statute, for example, the court usually will simply follow what the statute says. The court’s role is narrow in such settings because the legislature has settled the law. Similarly, when past courts have already answered similar questions before, a court may conclude that it is required to reach a particular result because it is bound by the past precedents. This is an application of the judicial practice of “stare decisis,” an abbrevia-tion of a Latin phrase meaning “That which has been already decided should remain settled.”In other settings, courts may justify their decisions on public pol-icy grounds. That is, they may pick the rule that they think is the best rule, and they may explain in the opinion why they think that rule is best. This is particularly likely in common law cases where judges are not bound by a statute or constitutional rule. Other courts will rely on morality, fairness, or notions of justice to justify 3The phrase “common law” started being used about a thousand years ago to refer to laws that were common to all English citizens. Thus, the word “common” in the phrase “common law” means common in the sense of “shared by all,” not common in the sense of “not very special.” The “common law” was announced in judicial opinions. As a result, you will sometimes hear the phrase “common law” used to refer to areas of judge-made law as opposed to legislatively-made law.Orin S. Kerr60 11 G REEN B AG 2Dtheir decisions. Many courts will mix and match, relying on several or even all of these justifications.Understand the Significance of the Majority Opinion Some opinions resolve the parties’ legal dispute by announcing and applying a clear rule of law that is new to that particular case. That rule is known as the “holding” of the case. Holdings are often con-trasted with “dicta” found in an opinion. Dicta refers to legal state-ments in the opinion not needed to resolve the dispute of the par-ties; the word is a pluralized abbreviation of the Latin phrase “obiter dictum,” which means “a remark by the way.” When a court announces a clear holding, you should take a min-ute to think about how the court’s rule would apply in other situa-tions. During class, professors like to pose “hypotheticals,” new sets of facts that are different from those found in the cases you have read. They do this for two reasons. First, it’s hard to understand the significance of a legal rule unless you think about how it might apply to lots of different situations. A rule might look good in one setting, but another set of facts might reveal a major problem or ambiguity. Second, judges often reason by “analogy,” which means a new case may be governed by an older case when the facts of the new case are similar to those of the older one. This raises the question, which are the legally relevant facts for this particular rule? The best way to evaluate this is to consider new sets of facts. You’ll spend a lot of time doing this in class, and you can get a head start on your class discussions by asking the hypotheticals on your own before class begins.Finally, you should accept that some opinions are vague. Some-times a court won’t explain its reasoning very well, and that forces us to try to figure out what the opinion means. You’ll look for the holding of the case but become frustrated because you can’t find one. It’s not your fault; some opinions are written in a narrow way so that there is no clear holding, and others are just poorly reasoned or written. Rather than trying to fill in the ambiguity with false cer-tainty, try embracing the ambiguity instead. One of the skills of top-flight lawyers is that they know what they don’t know: they knowHow to Read a Legal OpinionA UTUMN 200761 when the law is unclear. Indeed, this skill of identifying when a problem is easy and when it is hard (in the sense of being unsettled or unresolved by the courts) is one of the keys to doing very well in law school. The best law students are the ones who recognize and identify these unsettled issues without pretending that they are easy. Understand Any Concurring and/or Dissenting Opinions You probably won’t believe me at first, but concurrences and dis-sents are very important. You need to read them carefully. To un-derstand why, you need to appreciate that law is man-made, and Anglo-American law has often been judge-made. Learning to “think like a lawyer” often means learning to think like a judge, which means learning how to evaluate which rules and explanations are strong and which are weak. Courts occasionally say things that are silly, wrongheaded, or confused, and you need to think independ-ently about what judges say.Concurring and dissenting opinions often do this work for you. Casebook authors edit out any unimportant concurrences and dis-sents to keep the opinions short. When concurrences and dissents appear in a casebook, it signals that they offer some valuable insights and raise important arguments. Disagreement between the majority opinion and concurring or dissenting opinions often frames the key issue raised by the case; to understand the case, you need to under-stand the arguments offered in concurring and dissenting opinions. IV. W HY D O L AW P ROFESSORSU SE THE C ASE M ETHOD ?’ll conclude by stepping back and explaining why law professors bother with the case method. Every law student quickly realizes that law school classes are very different from college classes. Your college professors probably stood at the podium and droned on while you sat back in your chair, safe in your cocoon. You’re now starting law school, and it’s very different. You’re reading about actual cases, real-life disputes, and you’re trying to learn about the law by picking up bits and pieces of it from what the opinions tellIOrin S. Kerr62 11 G REEN B AG 2Dyou. Even weirder, your professors are asking you questions about those opinions, getting everyone to join in a discussion about them. Why the difference?, you may be wondering. Why do law schools use the case method at all?I think there are two major reasons, one historical and the other practical.The Historical ReasonThe legal system that we have inherited from England is largely judge-focused. The judges have made the law what it is through their written opinions. To understand that law, we need to study the actual decisions that the judges have written. Further, we need to learn to look at law the way that judges look at law. In our sys-tem of government, judges can only announce the law when decid-ing real disputes: they can’t just have a press conference and an-nounce a set of legal rules. (This is sometimes referred to as the “case or controversy” requirement; a court has no power to decide an issue unless it is presented by an actual case or controversy be-fore the court.) To look at the law the way that judges do, we need to study actual cases and controversies, just like the judges. In short, we study real cases and disputes because real cases and disputes his-torically have been the primary source of law.The Practical ReasonA second reason professors use the case method is that it teaches an essential skill for practicing lawyers. Lawyers represent clients, and clients will want to know how laws apply to them. To advise a cli-ent, a lawyer needs to understand exactly how an abstract rule of law will apply to the very specific situations a client might encoun-ter. This is more difficult than you might think, in part because a legal rule that sounds definite and clear in the abstract may prove murky in application. (For example, imagine you go to a public park and see a sign that says “No vehicles in the park.” That plainly for-bids an automobile, but what about bicycles, wheelchairs, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Ambulances? Are these “vehi-cles” for the purpose of the rule or not?) As a result, good lawyersHow to Read a Legal Opinionneed a vivid imagination; they need to imagine how rules might ap-ply, where they might be unclear, and where they might lead to unexpected outcomes. The case method and the frequent use of hypotheticals will help train your brain to think this way. Learning the law in light of concrete situations will help you deal with par-ticular facts you’ll encounter as a practicing lawyer.Good luck!A UTUMN 2007 63Copyright © 2007 The Green Bag, Inc. “The Green Bag” and the logo are our registered trademarks.。
英美法判例导读
五、二级判决依据种类
（一）法律百科全书(legal encyclopedias) 2.〈美国法学（第二辑）〉(American Jurisprudence,2nd series),简称“Am.Jur.2d”。从1962年开始出版，共 120卷，并且每年出版增补卷。其各卷均附有目录表、 平行参照表、引证的制定法及规则表，以及本卷文章索 引。它与C.J.S相比，分析更加深入，引用的判决依据 也更加多样，虽引用的判例相对较少，但引用联邦与州 制定法及规章较多，且引用法律期刊、《美国法律报告》 （ALR）等二级判决依据。每篇文章不但清晰地阐述法 律问题，而且考察法院在解释相关法律时的精神及意图， 以及立法机构制定和修改相关法律时的意图。 引证：卷数+名称缩写+主题名称+节号+（出版年） 如：56A Am.Jur.2d,Public Officers and Empoloyees, §263(1984)
五、二级判决依据种类
（一）法律百科全书(legal encyclopedias) 美国现行的两部一般性的法律百科全书是 《美国法学》和《美国法律百科全书》
英国现行的一般性法律百科全书主要有《霍 尔斯伯英格兰法律》(Halsbury’s Laws of England)。
五、二级判决依据种类
（一）法律百科全书(legal encyclopedias) 1。《美国法律百科全书（第二辑）》(Corpus Juris Secundum)，简称“C.J.S”。该书由西方集团出版， 1936年开始出版，共150卷，其中可能多卷使用一个序 数，以A、B、C共分，例如第48卷、第48A卷、第48B卷。 该系列附有若干增补卷(pocket supplements) C.J.S包括400多个主题，主题细分为小主题(sub-topics)， 再分为节(sections)。每节都包括文章和脚注两部分。 引证格式为：卷数+名称缩写+主题名称+节号+（出版年） 如：85 C.J.S Taxation §806 (1954)
[法学]英美法案例研读
![[法学]英美法案例研读](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/2cc92c98c77da26925c5b033.png)
二、判例总结(Syllabus or Prefatory Statement)
参阅West出版公司为Cereghino v. Vershum案所提供的判 例总结 In an action to reform a trust deed, plaintiffs appealed from a decree of the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, William M. Dale, J., denying the relief requested. The Supreme Court held that reformation was correctly denied where there was no evidence to establish a mistake of the scrivener or mutual mistake. Here, the evidence showed only unilateral mistake on the part of the plaintiffs, unattended by fraud or other inequitable conduct on the part of defendants. Affirmed. Carter, J., concurred and assigned reasons.
主审法官（Presiding Judges）
Before CARTER， LANIER and LeBLANC， JJ. LeBLANC, Judge (or PER CURIAM) The issues presented in this personal injury case concern a requested jury instruction, the exclusion of certain testimony and quantum.
如何阅读英文案例HowtoReadEnglishCasesandCitations演讲范文-演讲致辞模板
如何阅读英文案例HowtoReadEnglishCasesandCitations演讲范文（大连外国语学院应用英语学院屈文生)第一部分案例通常由下列几个部分组成。
一、案例名称（case name）；例如：marbury v. madison （马伯里诉麦迪逊）, v is short for versus.是“诉”的意思。
二、判决法院（court rendering the opinion）；例如：new jersey supreme court (新泽西最高法院)。
三、卷宗号；案号（citation）；例如：93 , 461 a. 2d 138 (1983)，这说明该案出自《新西汇编》第93卷，第324页，以及《大西洋汇编》第二辑第138页，该案判决于1983年。
此处，a 是atlantic reporter的缩写。
像这种指明两个或两个以上出处的卷宗号叫作：“平行卷宗号”，其英语表达为“parallel citation”，意思是“an additional reference to a case that has been reported in more than more reporter.”广义上卷宗号包括上述一、案例名称；二、判决法院。
四、主审法官姓名（justice wrote the opinion）。
五、判决书（opinion: stating the issue raised, describing the parties and facts, discussing the relevant law, and rendering judgment.）判决书是整个案例的主体部分，其中包括法律争议（issue）、双方当事人情况、事实经过、判决采用的相关法律以及判决结果。
判决书的阅读过程之中，要注意以下几点：1. 时态主审法官的意见用现在时态；前审法院的意见用过去时态。
2. 主审法官的意见是法院意见。
英美法律制度(双语)第一章-案例阅读技巧
CONCLUSION： 案件当事人姓名（亦即案名）； 审判的法院及法官； 审级及案件作成判决日期；
Anglo-American this case? Ask yourself:1. When did the court decideLegal Systems 2.What was the historical setting?
（２）相关词汇： A. PARTIES
Plaintiff(s) v Defendant(s) (civil matters) Applicant(s) v Respondent(s) (civil matters) Appellant(s) v Respondent(s) (appeal cases) Prosecution v Accused (criminal matter before a judge or jury: indictable offences) Informant v Defendant(s) (criminal matter before a magistrate: summary offences) 初审案件判决中的原告与被告称为：plaintiff and defendant 中级上诉法院判决书中的上诉方称为:appellant,被上诉方称为:appellee 最高法院判决书中的上诉方称为：petitioner,被上诉方称为:respondent NOTE: in re (prep. Law: In the matter or case of; in regard to.) 案件名称前加上in re通常意味着只有一方当事人的案件，如破产、遗嘱、监护人、吊销律 师资格、移民申请、藐视法庭等案件。 Ex parte (From or on one side only, with the other side absent or unrepresented)(单方面的仅在一方面的或仅从一方面的，而另一方缺席或不到场： E.g.: testified ex parte 单方面证明；an ex parte hearing 单方面申诉.)案件名称前加上ex parte通常表示可单方面进行的庭审程序，无须通知诉讼的另一方或无须让其出庭答辩。 审前程序或庭审过程中，Pleading（诉讼文件）或者动议（Motion）名称冠有ex parte，表示 涉及单方面进行的法定程序。当事人事先无需通知诉讼的另一方或无需让对方出庭答辩。 Anglo-American Legal Systems Eg.诉讼保全动议
如何研习美国刑事诉讼判例
在刑事诉讼中， 案件事实既包括被告人实施的行为， 也包括执法人员实施的 行为。 但是由于这些判例多半是被告人挑战执法行为合法性的判例， 故执法人员 的执法行为以及支持执法行为的证据事实应该是我们阅读的重点。 如果我们不关 注这些事实， 就可能无法理解判决结果的意义， 以及本案件与其它类似案件的差 别。
（七）法庭意见【Majority opinion】
多数意见即法庭意见，是有法律拘束力的意见。在法庭意见正文前面，会标 明是哪位（大）法官撰写的。联邦和州最高法院的法官一般被称为 Justice，其 它上诉法院的法官被称为 Judge。
1.法律问题【Legal question】
撰写法庭意见的法官往往会在法庭意见的开头归纳出本案的法律 （宪法） 问 题。 这个法律问题就是判例的主题和需要解决的问题， 对该问题的回答往往就是 确立的法律规则。 如现任首席大法官罗伯茨撰写 Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 法庭意见时，首先便提出：These two cases raise a common question: whether the police may, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
数据信息。显然，所谓先例，主要就是指后人引用了先前案件里的 Holding。不 过对于一份判决意见里 Holding 到底是什么， 以及存在几个规则， 有时候会存在 很大争议，因为有些法官并不会在判决意见里明确写出 Holding。此外，作出裁 判的法官和后来的法官对于 Holding 是什么也可能存在不同解读。 好在数据库公 司整理后的判例， 一般会将 Holding 在判决意见前单列出来——不过这个规则显 然也不是唯一和最终的解读。 与 Holding 相关的一个词语叫 obiter dictum， 是法官在 opinion 里发表的附随 意见， 不具有法律拘束力， 往往也不针对本案的法律问题。 但由于其具有启发性， 律师可援引作为说理根据。不过有时候法官大人们也很“任性”，喧宾夺主的事 情也是发生过的。如 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643(1961)本来主要涉及宪法第一 修正案的言论和出版自由问题，但是克拉克（Clark）大法官撰写的法庭意见却 主要针对诉讼双方未提及、 未辩论、 大法官们闭门会议也未讨论过的法律问题 （这 也是 Harlan 大法官反对意见的首要理由） ， 即 Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 确立的非法证据排除规则是否适用于各州， Wolf v. Colo., 338 U.S. 25 是否需要推 翻。 也就是说， 这位法官大人硬生生将一个第一修正案案件变成了第四修正案案 件！（The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Clark, held that evidence obtained by unconstitutional search was inadmissible and vitiated conviction.） 而且正如大家知道 的， Mapp 案也是作为一个里程碑式的第四修正案案件而为人所知的！ 如此看来， 谁主谁辅，有时候还真不好说呢。 （2）Reasoning 推理则是阐述法院确立、 适用前述规则的理由。 规则和推理一起构成了判例 的实质内容，是判例的灵魂。
英国美国的法律案例分析(3篇)
第1篇一、案件背景美国诉麦当劳案（United States v. McDonald's Corporation）是美国历史上一起重要的消费者权益保护案件。
该案主要涉及麦当劳公司在其快餐产品中使用的化学添加剂，包括磷酸盐、焦糖色素、味精等。
原告认为这些添加剂对人体健康有害，麦当劳公司未充分告知消费者，违反了消费者权益保护法。
以下是具体案情。
二、案情概述原告是美国消费者联盟（Consumer Federation of America）和多个消费者组织，被告为麦当劳公司。
原告指控麦当劳公司在其快餐产品中使用磷酸盐、焦糖色素、味精等化学添加剂，这些添加剂对人体健康有害。
原告认为，麦当劳公司未在产品标签上注明这些添加剂的使用，违反了消费者权益保护法。
此外，原告还指控麦当劳公司在广告宣传中误导消费者，声称其产品安全无害。
三、案件审理1. 地区法院审理地区法院审理过程中，原告提交了多项证据，包括专家证词、研究报告等，证明磷酸盐、焦糖色素、味精等添加剂对人体健康可能产生负面影响。
然而，被告辩称这些添加剂在食品工业中普遍使用，且符合相关法规标准。
地区法院最终判决麦当劳公司无罪。
2. 上诉法院审理原告不服地区法院的判决，向上诉法院提起上诉。
上诉法院审理过程中，双方就添加剂的使用、消费者权益保护法等相关问题进行了辩论。
上诉法院认为，地区法院在审理过程中存在事实认定错误，遂撤销原判，发回重审。
3. 重审法院审理重审法院在审理过程中，重新审查了原告提交的证据。
最终，法院认为原告未能提供充分证据证明添加剂对人体健康有害，且麦当劳公司已在其产品标签上注明了添加剂的使用。
因此，法院再次判决麦当劳公司无罪。
四、案件评析1. 消费者权益保护法美国诉麦当劳案体现了消费者权益保护法在食品领域的应用。
消费者权益保护法旨在保护消费者在购买、使用商品或接受服务过程中的合法权益。
本案中，原告指控麦当劳公司未充分告知消费者添加剂的使用，违反了消费者权益保护法。
如何阅读英美判例
一、阅读判决书的意义：英美法的精华部分深藏于法官的判决意见里，通过阅读和分析法院判决书了解他们的法律推理和解释方法，提高我们的法律思维水平和解决法律问题的能力。
下列法官的判决书值得我们细读和揣摩：Justice Marshall (U.S.) 马歇尔Justice Holmes (U.S.) 霍姆斯Justice Cardozo (U.S.) 卡多佐Justice Posner (U.S.) 波斯纳Lord Mansfield (U.K.) 曼斯菲尔德Lord Danning (U.K.) 丹宁判决书在英语里用不同的词语表达，如opinion, decision, judgement等，我们翻译为“法官意见” 、“判决意见” 、“判决”等。
由于英美法院的判决书以说理充分、分析透彻的特点见长，所以在篇幅上都比较冗长，因此我们在阅读时，一要有耐心，二要抓要点。
那么怎么抓要点呢，这就需要我们对判决书的文体结构特点有一个概括地了解。
二、判决书的文体结构：（以美国为例）（一）抬头部分（Heading）1案件名称：主要表明当事方，但是有别于我国通常在案件名称内标明案由。
（如：“唐某杀人案” [刑事]，或“星星公司诉月亮公司担保合同纠纷案”[民事]）2 索引信息：例如该案件出自哪本案例集或判例汇编，第几卷，第几页等。
3 审理法院：在美国，因各州、审级不同而各有不同。
4 判决日期下面我们以“布什诉戈尔” 案 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) 为例作一说明：Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)（原告）诉（被告）（审理法院）（判决日所属年份）注意：① U.S. 指美国联邦最高法院 (The Supreme Court of United States)。
② Plaintiff的位置也可能是appelant(上诉人), defendent的位置也可能appellee（被上诉人）。
英美法律经典案例分析(3篇)
第1篇案例背景：R v. Morgan 是一起在英国法律史上具有重要意义的案例，涉及到了自卫权和误认防卫的概念。
此案发生在1978年，由英国上议院审理。
案情简介：本案中，被告Morgan在自家的花园中，看到一名男子（受害人）闯入他的私人领地。
Morgan误以为该男子是企图闯入他家的窃贼，于是从家中拿出一把枪，对准了男子。
在紧张的情绪下，Morgan扣动了扳机，不幸的是，子弹击中了受害人的胸部，导致其死亡。
在审理过程中，Morgan声称自己是在自卫的情况下开枪，并认为自己的行为符合法律规定的自卫权。
然而，陪审团却认为Morgan的行为超出了法律规定的自卫范围，最终判决Morgan犯有过失杀人罪。
上诉过程：Morgan不服一审判决，向英国上诉法院提出了上诉。
上诉法院认为，在Morgan的情况下，他误认了受害人的身份和动机，因此他的行为不能被认定为合法的自卫。
然而，上诉法院也认为，Morgan在当时的紧张情绪下，可能无法准确判断受害人的真实意图，因此他的行为不能被认定为故意杀人。
最终判决：英国上议院审理了此案，并作出了最终判决。
上议院认为，Morgan在误认受害人的情况下开枪，其行为虽然不符合自卫权的条件，但也不能被认定为故意杀人。
上议院认为，Morgan的行为构成了一种过失杀人，因此维持了上诉法院的判决。
案例分析：1. 自卫权的概念：自卫权是英国法律中的一项基本原则，它允许个人在遭受非法攻击或面临生命危险时采取必要的行动来保护自己。
在本案中，Morgan声称自己是在自卫的情况下开枪，但他的行为是否构成合法的自卫，成为本案的核心争议。
2. 误认防卫：误认防卫是指个人在自卫过程中，错误地认为对方构成了攻击，从而采取防卫行为。
在本案中，Morgan误以为受害人是企图闯入他家的窃贼，因此采取了防卫措施。
上议院认为，Morgan的误认是合理的，因为他在紧张的情绪下无法准确判断受害人的真实意图。
3. 自卫权的范围：自卫权并非没有限制，个人在行使自卫权时，必须遵守一定的法律原则。
英美法律制度(双语)第一章-案例阅读技巧
CONCLUSION： 案件当事人姓名（亦即案名）； 审判的法院及法官； 审级及案件作成判决日期；
Anglo-American this case? Ask yourself:1. When did the court decideLegal Systems 2.What was the historical setting?
Anglo-American Legal Systems
二、如何读判例(HOW TO READ COURT OPINIONS)
（一）判例的结构 (The Structure of a Court Opinion) １. 判例的名称或抬头 (Case Name or Caption)
（１）结构 Example:
Anglo-American Legal Systems
以Cerechino v．Vershum一案为例
In an action to reform a trust deed(修改一份信托契约), plaintiffs appealed from a decree（依据衡平法所做出的判决） of Circuit Court, Multnomah County, William M. Dale, J. , denying the relief requested(向法院提出的司法救济请求). The Supreme Court held that reformation was correctly denied where was no evidence to establish a mistake of the scrivener（代写契约等法律文书的代书人） or mutual mistake. Here, the evidence showed only unilateral mistake on the part of the plaintiffs: unattended（没有、不存在） by fraud or other inequitable conduct（不符合衡平法规范的行 为）on the part of defendants. Affirmed. Carter, J. , concurred（表示虽然同意判决结果但却是基于不 同理由） and assigned reasons（提供并说明理由）. Anglo-American Legal Systems
英美法判例导读
三、英国的法律渊源
（一）制定法 （二）条约 （三）委托立法 （四）司法先例 （五）习惯
四、二级判决依据
二级判决依据，有时也被称为“二级渊源”(secondary sources)是指由私人、非政府机构创制的或者由政府机 构非以行使立法权力的方式制定的判决依据。 虽然二级判决依据本身不是法律，但仍然非常重要。 首先，很多种类的二级判决依据在法官的判词中作为判 案的法律依据。 其次，二级判决依据往往是法律研究的起点，尤其是对 于不太熟悉相关领域的人员更是如此。 第三，二级判决依据以原始判决依据为基础，对其含义 加以阐述、评论、分析、总结，对于相关法律之间的关 系进行梳理，对于法律的历史沿革加以分析整理，甚至 对于法律的缺陷之处加以批判，阐述作者关于法律的应 然状态的观点并提出改革建议。
五、二级判决依据种类
（一）法律百科全书(legal encyclopedias) 美国现行的两部一般性的法律百科全书是 《美国法学》和《美国法律百科全书》
英国现行的一般性法律百科全书主要有《霍 尔斯伯英格兰法律》(Halsbury’s Laws of England)。
五、二级判决依据种类
（一）法律百科全书(legal encyclopedias) 1。《美国法律百科全书（第二辑）》(Corpus Juris Secundum)，简称“C.J.S”。该书由西方集团出版， 1936年开始出版，共150卷，其中可能多卷使用一个序 数，以A、B、C共分，例如第48卷、第48A卷、第48B卷。 该系列附有若干增补卷(pocket supplements) C.J.S包括400多个主题，主题细分为小主题(sub-topics)， 再分为节(sections)。每节都包括文章和脚注两部分。 引证格式为：卷数+名称缩写+主题名称+节号+（出版年） 如：85 C.J.S Taxation §806 (1954)
检索美国法律案例(3篇)
第1篇一、引言法律案例是法律实践的重要组成部分，对于理解和应用法律原则具有重要意义。
在美国法律体系中，案例检索是法律工作者必备的技能之一。
本文将以“合理怀疑”原则为例，探讨如何检索美国法律案例。
二、背景介绍“合理怀疑”原则是美国刑事诉讼中的一个重要原则，指的是在法庭审理过程中，如果陪审团对被告人的有罪证据产生合理怀疑，则应作出被告无罪的判决。
这一原则体现了美国法律体系中对被告权利的保障。
三、检索方法1. 使用在线数据库美国有许多在线法律数据库，如LexisNexis、Westlaw、BNA等，这些数据库收录了大量的美国法律案例。
以下是使用这些数据库检索“合理怀疑”原则案例的步骤：（1）登录数据库，选择“案例”检索方式。
（2）在搜索框中输入关键词“reasonable doubt”。
（3）根据需要，调整检索条件，如案件类型、年份、法院级别等。
（4）浏览检索结果，筛选出与“合理怀疑”原则相关的案例。
2. 查阅法律书籍美国有许多关于法律案例的书籍，如《美国最高法院案例汇编》、《美国联邦法院案例汇编》等。
以下是查阅这些书籍的步骤：（1）根据所需案例类型，选择合适的法律书籍。
（2）在目录中找到“合理怀疑”原则相关章节。
（3）阅读相关案例，了解“合理怀疑”原则的适用情况。
3. 咨询法律专家在检索过程中，如果遇到难以解决的问题，可以向法律专家请教。
法律专家可以根据你的需求，提供相关的案例和建议。
四、案例分析以下是一起涉及“合理怀疑”原则的美国法律案例：案例名称：Harrington v. California（1976）案情简介：被告人Harrington因谋杀罪被定罪。
然而，在审理过程中，陪审团对案件事实产生了合理怀疑，认为被告人可能无罪。
于是，被告人向最高法院提起上诉。
判决结果：最高法院认为，在刑事诉讼中，如果陪审团对被告人的有罪证据产生合理怀疑，则应作出被告无罪的判决。
因此，最高法院裁定撤销原判，发回重审。
如何介绍英美法案例
如何介绍英美法案例要介绍英美法案例呀，那可以这么来。
首先呢，得讲讲这个案子的基本情况，就像讲故事一样。
比如说这事儿发生在哪，是在伦敦的街头呀，还是纽约的某个高楼大厦里。
然后说说主角都是谁，是俩普通老百姓争个小财产呢，还是大公司之间互相掐架。
接着呢，就得提提这个案子为啥会闹到法院去。
是有人感觉自己被欺负得不行了，像被邻居家的狗咬了，邻居还不认账这种；还是那种商业上的大阴谋被揭露了，一方觉得另一方搞不正当竞争。
再说说法院是咋审理的。
这时候就可以描述一下法官的态度啦，是那种特别严肃，好像谁都不敢在他面前喘大气的；还是比较随和，但是心里可明白着呢。
讲讲双方的律师在法庭上怎么唇枪舌战的，一方的律师可能口才特别好，说得天花乱坠，另一方也不甘示弱，拿出各种证据来反驳。
还有啊，案子里那些关键的证据很重要。
比如说有个遗嘱的真假问题，那这个遗嘱就是关键证据，是手写的呢，还是打印的，上面有没有可疑的签名之类的。
最后呢，一定要说这个案子的判决结果。
是原告大获全胜，得到了一大笔赔偿，高兴得不行；还是被告成功翻盘，让原告灰溜溜的。
然后还可以简单说说这个判决对以后类似案子有啥影响，是不是开了个什么先例，以后大家遇到这种事儿都得照着这个判法来。
比如说有个有名的案例，就是那个麦当劳热咖啡烫伤老太太的案子。
这事儿发生在美国的一家麦当劳店里。
老太太买了杯热咖啡，在车里准备加糖奶的时候，不小心洒了，结果被严重烫伤。
老太太就把麦当劳告上法庭了。
麦当劳觉得很冤啊，咖啡热是正常的呀。
但是老太太的律师指出，麦当劳的咖啡温度过高，比一般家庭自己做的咖啡热很多，而且麦当劳之前也有不少顾客被烫伤的记录。
在法庭上，双方争得不可开交。
最后法官判决麦当劳要赔偿老太太一大笔钱。
这个案子就给很多商家提了个醒，在产品的安全温度这些方面得注意，可不能让顾客面临太大的风险，也让大家知道，哪怕是一些看起来好像是顾客自己不小心的事儿，如果商家有过错，也得负责呢。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
一、阅读判决书的意义：英美法的精华部分深藏于法官的判决意见里，通过阅读和分析法院判决书了解他们的法律推理和解释方法，提高我们的法律思维水平和解决法律问题的能力。
判决书在英语里用不同的词语表达，如opinion, decision, judgement等，我们翻译为“法官意见” 、“判决意见” 、“判决”等。
由于英美法院的判决书以说理充分、分析透彻的特点见长，所以在篇幅上都比较冗长，因此我们在阅读时，一要有耐心，二要抓要点。
那么怎么抓要点呢，这就需要我们对判决书的文体结构特点有一个概括地了解。
二、判决书的文体结构：（以美国为例）（一）抬头部分（Heading）1案件名称：主要表明当事方，但是有别于我国通常在案件名称内标明案由。
（如：“唐某杀人案” [刑事]，或“星星公司诉月亮公司担保合同纠纷案”[民事]）2 索引信息：例如该案件出自哪本案例集或判例汇编，第几卷，第几页等。
3 审理法院：在美国，因各州、审级不同而各有不同。
4 判决日期下面我们以“布什诉戈尔” 案Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) 为例作一说明：Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)（原告）诉（被告）（审理法院）（判决日所属年份）注意：① U.S. 指美国联邦最高法院(The Supreme Court of United States)。
② Plaintiff的位置也可能是appelant(上诉人), defendent的位置也可能appellee（被上诉人）。
初审案件：原告plaintiff, 被告：defendant中级上诉法院：原告appellant,被告appellee最高上诉法院：上诉方：petitioner,被上诉方：respondent（二）事实部分1．案件法律程序简介（procedual history）在事实部分之前，初审案件通常要简要交代案件当事人（parties）、案由（Cause of action）、起诉以及受理情况；上诉案件通常介绍一审案件的判决结果、当事人上诉及二审法院受理情况、二审法院判决结果。
在这部分要重点搞清楚当事人的诉讼请求(claim or request)和法院根据案件事实以及当事人诉讼请求所归纳出来的争议点(issues)。
issues指争议中的法律问题或法律焦点（points of law in dispute）。
过去，法院习惯用whether 开头的问句来表达争议案件的法律焦点，现在经过“平易英语改革”（the plain english），也有用普通疑问句的。
PRACTICE→ the issues in the lotus case2. 案件事实(facts)和我国法院判决书结构相似，也有案件事实部分。
根据法律适用的基本步骤：以特定法律规则为大前提，以案件的法律事实为小前提，所得结论就是判决结果。
该步骤图示如下：法律规则(rules)+法律事实(facts)↓判决(judgement)注意：判决书内所列事实并非全为法律事实(legally relevent facts) , 我们应该重点要寻找那些与案件争议相关的法律事实。
3. 法律规则(rules)不同的法律渊源→ 大陆法系：法典或成文法→ 普通法系：1 制定法或2 先例规则或3法官当庭造法（特定案件中具体适用三种中的那一类要视情况而定。
）4. 推理方法(reasoning)deduction (演绎法, 两大法系司法过程中的通用方法)for example →大前提humanbeing like travalling.+小前提I'm human.↓结论I like travallingso →大前提The Law prescribes that ' You shall not kill.'+小前提Jack killed two people.↓结论Jack has broken the law (hence he should be sentenced) .5. 法律结论(Holding)是对法律争议点（issues）的回答，分肯定回答和否定回答两种。
格式上通常出现在判决书的前部，跟在案件法律程序简介部分之后。
6. 判决(Judgement)是对当事人间最终权利分配和救济情况的总结，意在定分止争。
在程序上，二审分to affirm（维持）、to reverse (驳回)等三、总结：我们阅读判决书要重点看下面两方面：一、法院适用的法律规则到底是什么？制定法还是普通法（遵循先例）亦或是自己造法？法官在判决书里适用的规则是明确的表达出来还是在暗示（imply）？二、法院如何认定法律事实，排除与案件无关的事实如何阅读英文案例How to Read English Cases and Citations一、案例名称（Case Name）；例如：Marbury v. Madison （马伯里诉麦迪逊）, v is short for versus.是“诉”的意思。
二、判决法院（Court rendering the opinion）；例如：New Jersey Supreme Court (新泽西最高法院)。
三、卷宗号；案号（Citation）；例如：93 N.J324, 461 A. 2d 138 (1983)，这说明该案出自《新西汇编》第93卷，第324页，以及《大西洋汇编》第二辑第138页，该案判决于1983年。
此处，A 是Atlantic Reporter的缩写。
像这种指明两个或两个以上出处的卷宗号叫作：“平行卷宗号”，其英语表达为“parallel citation”，意思是“An additional reference to a case th at has been reported in more than more reporter.”广义上卷宗号包括上述一、案例名称；二、判决法院。
四、主审法官姓名（Justice wrote the opinion）。
五、判决书（opinion: stating the issue raised, describing the parties and facts, discussing the relevant law, and rendering judgment.）判决书是整个案例的主体部分，其中包括法律争议（Issue）、双方当事人情况、事实经过、判决采用的相关法律以及判决结果。
判决书的阅读过程之中，要注意以下几点：1.时态主审法官的意见用现在时态；前审法院的意见用过去时态。
2.主审法官的意见是法院意见。
3除法院意见外还有两种意见，它们被称为“反对意见”（dissenting opinion or dissent）与“配合意见”（concurring opinion）。
Dissenting opinion: opinion offered by a judge disagreeing with the majority panel of judges’ conclusion; “反对意见”指不同意大多数法官判决结论之某一法官的意见；Concurring opinion: opinion written by a judge agreeing with the majority’s conclusion but not its reasoning. “配合意见”是指同意大多数法官的意见，但是不同意判决结论的推理之某一法官的意见。
majority opinion:多数法官意见（过半数）plurality opinion: 多数法官意见（多数判决意见的法官未达半数）concurring opinion:另类判决理由（虽同意判决结果单基于不同理由的意见）mandatory authority:强制性法律依据persuasive authority:说服性法律依据per curiam:全院;全体法官;六、法庭投票（Votes of the court）例如在七名大法官审理的情况下，有几名法官的意见是“维持原判”（affirmance），有几名法官的意见是“撤销原判、发回重审”（reversal and remandment）。
什么是citation?由于卷宗号这一块涉及内容庞杂，这里再逐一特别说明一下。
我们首先来看一下《布莱克法律字典》中citation的定义：A reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or treatise, that either substantiates or contradicts a given position. (p.237) 7th edition. 由于a citation is a reference to a legal authority，因此，citation必须要有一个标准，这样以后的参考者才容易检索得到。
正如《布莱克法律字典》所指出的一样，Citation formats exist for many different types of legal sources including cases, statutes and secondary legal materials. Understanding the basic format for each of these different types of sources will enable the researcher to more independently locate materials in the law library.案例之中的卷宗号通常包括下列几个部分：a. 案件双方当事人姓名（the names of the parties involved in the lawsuit）；b. 包含案件全文的汇编卷号（the volume number of the reporter containing the full text of the case）；c. 该案例汇编的缩写名称（the abbreviated name of that case reporter）；d. 案例开始的页码数（the page number on which the case begins）；e. 案件判决年份（the year the case was decided）；有时还包括f. 案件判决法院（the name of the court deciding the case）。