Legal Research and Writing: Authority, Citators, and the Objective Memo
Legal Research and Writing tests whether you can find the controlling rule, confirm it is still good law, and communicate it in a form a court or partner can use. CLE Entrance Exam questions range from research mechanics - connectors, citators, pocket parts - to citation form and memo structure. The recurring theme is weight of authority: is this source binding, persuasive, or merely a lead?
Hierarchy and weight
Constitutions outrank statutes, statutes outrank regulations, and regulations outrank common-law decisions construing them. Primary authority is the law itself; secondary authority (treatises, law review articles, encyclopedia entries, annotations) never binds but is useful for finding primary sources. Mandatory authority comes from a higher court in the same jurisdiction or from the governing legislature; everything else is persuasive.
Research mechanics
Use boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), quoted phrases, and proximity connectors such as /p and /s. Search by field where the database allows. Remember that headnotes are editorial summaries, not the court's words, and that annotated code notes are secondary. Always validate with a citator: a case may be overruled in part, questioned, or superseded by statute. Print sources require checking pocket parts and supplemental volumes.
Writing form
Objective memos follow Question Presented, Brief Answer, Facts, Discussion, Conclusion, with each issue analyzed in IRAC or CREAC form. Persuasive writing uses point headings that state conclusions. Citations follow uniform form: case name italicized, volume, reporter, first page, pinpoint page, court and year - for example, 123 F.3d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1999). Signals carry meaning: see, see also, cf., e.g., and but see are not interchangeable.
Worked example
A researcher finds a 2015 court of appeals decision squarely supporting a position. Running the citator reveals the decision was overruled in part by a later en banc opinion on one of its two holdings. Correct approach: cite the case only for the surviving holding, add a subsequent-history note or explanatory parenthetical, and find new authority for the abrogated point rather than dropping the case silently.
Traps that cost marks
Quoting a headnote as the court's language, citing a treatise as binding, relying on a dissent for a proposition, and citing without validating subsequent history.