This sentence caught my attention as this is essentially the key concept of all the case briefs we have done in our classes. We learn how the rule has changed and how the courts apply the rule to the case. If we know a case is factually similar under the precedent then the court must that theory that was used in the precedent to rule in the current case. The only thing that is still difficult for me to fully grasp is that there are no two cases alike so how do we rule a case under a precedent when there may be a better rule out there for that case.

I really like how the author tells us her process for which resources to use and when to use when answering her problem. I also like how she acknowledges that this is the way that works for her and just because it works for her does not mean it is superior than another way in which others may tackle the same problem. I think the important concept is to find a way that works for you and acknowledging that it is not less efficient or wrong to start with a different source than others. It is going to take us some time to figure out what works best for us but this gives us a good idea for a starting point.

In my opinion, I find it shocking that the legal writing doesn't impact the court's view. I have always thought that the way lawyers write and defend or argue for a case has a huge persuasive impact and if a lawyer has bad legal writing wouldn't that change the way they viewed it. If a lawyer's argument or defense was poorly transcribed then I would believe that the lawyer has put his or her client at a huge disservice and disadvantage to the court. Reading further into the text it discusses how clients and courts rely on the lawyer's writing to elucidate the issues. If the lawyer can't articulate these issues through their writing how do we know the court's view doesn't change