Case brief template / 2026

Case Brief Template

Pick a format — IRAC, Standard, Book brief, or Cold-call — and watch a fully worked brief of a landmark case form in that layout. No sign-up to read it. A study aid for the night before a cold-call, not legal advice.

Formats
4
Template fields
10
Worked cases
2
Drafting deskIRAC format / 6 sections

Exam prep and legal-writing classes — trains the Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion structure graders look for.

IRAC brief

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) · New York Court of Appeals

Case name & citation
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).
Facts
Railroad guards helped a man board a moving train, dislodging a package of fireworks he carried. The package exploded; the shock allegedly toppled scales at the far end of the platform, injuring Helen Palsgraf, a waiting passenger. She sued the railroad for the guards’ negligence.
Issue
Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff whose injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct?
Rule
Negligence is a relational concept: a duty of care is owed only to those within the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant’s conduct. There is no liability for an unforeseeable plaintiff.
Reasoning / Analysis
Cardozo, J., framed duty in terms of foreseeability and the relationship between the parties. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty owed; conduct is negligent only toward those whose injury could be foreseen. Because nothing suggested the package was dangerous, no hazard to a distant bystander was apparent, so no duty ran to Palsgraf and no negligence claim could lie.
Holding
No. The railroad owed Palsgraf no duty because her injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of helping the passenger board; the guards’ conduct was not a wrong "in relation to her."

Educational study aid, not legal advice. These are worked briefs of two landmark cases written to teach the structure — the desk renders a pre-written example, it does not analyze your own case. Analytics records aggregate tool usage and which format you viewed, never personal data.

What the letters mean

IRAC is the structure graders are scanning for.

Most professors want the same move: name the question, state the rule, apply it to the facts, then land the answer. The format trains that reflex.

Issue

The precise legal question, phrased so it can be answered yes or no.

Rule

The legal rule or principle the court applies to that question.

Application

How the rule meets the facts of this case — the reasoning.

Conclusion

The holding: the court’s direct answer, the rule of the case.

10Labelled sections in the full template
4Brief formats included (IRAC, Standard, Book, Cold-call)
Issue · Rule · Application · ConclusionWhat IRAC stands for
The full template

Ten labelled sections, and exactly what goes in each.

A format is an ordered subset of these. The hint under each label is the one-sentence test for whether a fact belongs there.

  1. Case name & citationThe parties, reporter citation, court, and year — exactly as you would cite it.
  2. FactsThe legally relevant facts only — who did what, and how the dispute reached this court.
  3. Procedural historyWhat the lower courts decided and how the case arrived at this one.
  4. IssueThe precise legal question the court must answer, phrased as a yes/no question.
  5. RuleThe legal rule or principle the court applies to decide the issue.
  6. HoldingThe court’s direct answer to the issue — the rule of the case.
  7. Reasoning / AnalysisHow the court applied the rule to the facts to reach the holding.
  8. Judgment / DispositionWhat the court ordered — affirmed, reversed, remanded.
  9. Concurrence / DissentKey separate opinions and why they disagree — often where cold-call questions live.
  10. Notes & questionsYour own takeaways, the doctrine it illustrates, and likely exam hooks.
Four formats

One case, briefed four ways — pick by the job in front of you.

The holding is the spine of every format. Choose the rest by whether you are prepping an exam, surviving a reading, or walking into a cold-call.

IRAC

6 sections

Exam prep and legal-writing classes — trains the Issue → Rule → Application → Conclusion structure graders look for.

  • caseName
  • facts
  • issue
  • rule
  • reasoning
  • holding

Standard (full)

10 sections

Doctrinal courses where you need the complete picture, including procedure and separate opinions.

  • caseName
  • facts
  • procedure
  • issue
  • rule
  • holding
  • reasoning
  • judgment
  • dissent
  • notes

Book brief

4 sections

Annotating directly in your casebook — the leanest format, just enough to survive the reading.

  • caseName
  • issue
  • holding
  • reasoning

Cold-call ready

6 sections

The night before class — front-loads facts, holding, and the dissent professors probe on.

  • caseName
  • facts
  • issue
  • holding
  • dissent
  • notes
Source sheet

A structure you can check.

The briefing structure and the sample cases are sourced and bounded: useful for learning the form, not a replacement for the casebook or for legal advice.

Where this comes fromVerified June 2026
Labelled sections in the full template10

Bridging the Gap / standard 1L case-brief structure

View source
What IRAC stands forIssue · Rule · Application · Conclusion

IRAC method, standard legal-writing pedagogy

View source
Worked sample briefs (published reporter citations)
  • Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)
  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

The two sample briefs are concise educational study aids drawn from the published opinions — not official court summaries, not a substitute for reading the case, and not legal advice. Confirm any citation against the reporter before relying on it.

Before class

What 1Ls ask about briefing.

IRAC is a focused structure — Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — built for exams and legal-writing classes where the grader wants to see your reasoning move from the question to the answer. A full Standard brief adds procedural history, the judgment, separate opinions, and your own notes. Use IRAC to practice analysis; use the Standard format when a doctrinal course needs the complete picture. The desk above renders the same case in either, so you can see exactly what each format keeps.

The Cold-call format. It front-loads the facts, the issue, the holding, and the dissent — the four things a professor probes when they call on you — and trims the rest. The night before class, brief in that layout so the answer to "what happened, what did the court hold, and who disagreed" is at the top of the page.

Yes. The two worked samples are Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (the foundational duty/foreseeability case) and International Shoe Co. v. Washington (the origin of the minimum-contacts personal-jurisdiction test). They are written as concise study aids from the published opinions to show the structure clearly. They are not a substitute for reading the case, and the citations should be confirmed against the reporter.

No, and that is deliberate. This is a study tool: it renders pre-written briefs of two landmark cases in the format you pick so you can learn the structure and copy the shape into your own briefing. It does not read or analyze a case you paste in. Figures and case facts were verified June 16, 2026 against the sources cited above.

No. This is an educational study aid for law students learning to brief cases. Nothing here is legal advice, and the sample briefs are not official court summaries. Always read the full opinion and follow your professor’s required format.

Get the printable template pack

Want blank, printable PDF templates of all four formats — IRAC, Standard, Book, and Cold-call — to fill in by hand? Leave an email and we will send the pack.

Free first pack. An educational study aid, not legal advice. We only use your email to send the templates.