Thinking on my feet

Last night I was called on by one of my professors to explain a case which was assigned for that class. I'd read and analyzed the case and felt prepared for almost any question. I was poorly prepared for his first one: "So, was this a hard case?"

I'm embarrassed by my flat-footed answer: "Sort of". Clearly I need to get better at thinking on my feet. Luckily this wasn't an important point, and he moved on and got to the substance of what we were trying to learn from this reading. I was not sure I could articulate clearly nor defend the wishy washy answer - but I'd like to attempt that here.

I have had the experience of reading case law in two different modes. You can read a case as a law student and a future lawyer; from this perspective, it's my opinion you're trying to get the meaning of the case and how it modifies or adds to interpretations and doctrines. You're performing a forensic function, keeping some very important bits (those which were later codified or which influenced later cases), some pretty important bits (convincing reasoning which may show up in different contexts later), and the rest. It's sometimes hard to determine exactly what's important but (especially with guidance) it's ultimately pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, you could approach the case as a (future) judge. This to me is much harder, especially for the subtle cases where the court is trying to preserve a precedent while setting some new rule or tests. Why did the court think this was important? Why was the (then current) situation untenable, generally or for this case? Could you have made a convincing argument for a different outcome? Would you have come up with these reasons for this outcome?

To me, HANNA v PLUMER could have gone either way; clearly the court felt a particular outcome was warranted, and decided the case accordingly. With hindsight, the holding make sense, and feels right. Had I been presented with the same set of facts, would I have come to the same conclusion, or would I have reacted as the lower courts did and decided differently (this case overturned a lower court decision)? That's a much harder problem.

So was this a hard case? Sort of. Depends on whether you're looking at it as a future lawyer or a future judge. Should have come up with that last night.