The Case Method
Chapter Twenty-Seven
Syllabus topic 2, "Methods of Teaching - Merits and demerits"
Pages 99 to 102 of 543
In one line
The case method teaches law out of judgments rather than out of statements of the law: the student reads the decisions themselves, and the rule is something the class arrives at rather than something it is given.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the case method, developed by Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard in 1870, teaches law through the study of decided cases collected in a casebook; the student reads the judgments before class and the teacher, by questioning, leads the class to extract the principle, distinguish the decisions and identify the limits of the rule, so that the student learns legal reasoning rather than receiving a statement of the law.
How it works
The material is judgments, not summaries. A casebook is a collection of decisions, often edited, sometimes with notes and questions, and the student reads them before the class.
The class is questioning, not exposition. The teacher asks what the facts were, what the court decided, what the reason was, and then what would happen if a fact were changed. The rule emerges from the comparison.
A vocabulary the student needs. The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision, the part that binds; obiter dicta are things said by the way, which do not bind; distinguishing is showing that an earlier case does not govern because a material fact differs. The case method is training in exactly these three operations.
What is produced is a capacity, not a stock. At the end the student may not be able to recite the rule cleanly, but can take an unfamiliar decision apart.
Merits
It teaches reasoning, which is the thing lawyers are actually paid for. A rule can be looked up; the ability to work out what an unclear decision means cannot.
It uses the primary source. The student reads what the court said rather than somebody's account of it, which is exactly the discipline Module III of this paper requires for research.
It shows the law as it really is. Judgments conflict, courts distinguish, doctrines have ragged edges. A student taught only from statements of rules is surprised by all of this in practice.
It is active. The student has to do something before the class and during it, and retention from active work is far higher than from listening.
It builds the skill of reading. Reading a long judgment for its ratio is a learned skill and it is the one an Indian lawyer uses every working day.
And it makes the student argue. The method requires taking a position and defending it, which no amount of note-taking produces.
Demerits
It is slow, and this is the decisive practical objection. Two judgments may take an hour and cover what a lecture covers in ten minutes. A syllabus of twenty compulsory papers cannot be covered this way.
The Case Method
It needs small classes. Questioning a hundred and eighty students is not questioning; it is questioning four of them while the rest watch.
It needs prepared students. If the class has not read the cases the method collapses into a bad lecture, and attendance is not the same thing as preparation.
It needs the material. A casebook is a substantial editorial undertaking, and the alternative, sending students to find judgments themselves, needs a library and a database, which chapter 170 shows many colleges lack.
It underserves statute. The method was built for a system whose law is largely judge made. Indian law is heavily codified: contract, evidence, procedure, companies, labour and taxation are statutes, and a method that teaches through cases handles a code awkwardly.
It can leave the rule unstated. A student who has argued about four decisions and never been told the settled position is in difficulty when an examiner asks for it.
And it does not transplant cleanly to an essay examination. The method produces the ability to reason to an answer on new facts. An examination that asks a candidate to write on the doctrine of frustration rewards a clean exposition instead. Students respond rationally by preparing expositions, which is the whole problem topic 3 is about.
Where it does work in India
In the LL.M., where classes are small, students are older, the subject is narrow and the assessment includes a dissertation. The reader's own group papers are the natural home of the method.
In a seminar course, chapter 260.
On the parts of the syllabus that really are judge made, which in India means constitutional law, administrative law and torts more than contract or evidence.
And in a modified form everywhere, which is the practical answer: two or three cases taught properly in a lecture course, with the judgments circulated, rather than a whole course run on the method.
A worked example
A class on the constitutional right to legal aid.
By lecture, the teacher states that free legal services are a fundamental right implicit in Article 21, names four cases and dictates a summary. Ten minutes.
By the case method, the class reads Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544, decided on 17 August 1978, in which a prisoner was denied the copy of a High Court judgment he needed to appeal and the Court held that fair procedure under Article 21 requires both service of the judgment in time to appeal and free legal services to an indigent prisoner where the ends of justice require it. It then reads Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401, decided on 10 March 1986, in which the trial court never told the accused he could have a lawyer at State cost and the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that failure to inform vitiated the trial.
The Case Method
The teacher asks one question: what does the second case add to the first? The class works out that the first creates the right and the second makes it useless unless the court tells the accused about it. That is the ratio of the line, and no summary conveys it.
Cost: one hour instead of ten minutes, and two judgments the students had to read. Benefit: the class can now reason about the next case in the line without being told.
Distinctions
| Case method | Lecture method | |
|---|---|---|
| Material | Judgments, read in advance | The teacher's exposition |
| Student activity | Reading, comparing, arguing | Listening, noting |
| Produces | Reasoning and reading skill | Organised knowledge |
| Class size | Small | Unlimited |
| Suits | Judge made law | Codified law and settled rules |
| Natural assessment | Problems on new facts | The essay paper |
Quick revision
The case method: developed by Langdell at Harvard in 1870; teaches from judgments in a casebook, read in advance, with the rule extracted by questioning.
Vocabulary: ratio decidendi, the binding reason; obiter dicta, said by the way; distinguishing, showing a material fact differs.
Merits: teaches reasoning; uses the primary source; shows the law's real untidiness; active; builds reading skill; makes students argue.
Demerits: slow; needs small classes, prepared students and casebooks; underserves codified law; can leave the settled rule unstated; and does not fit an essay examination.
Where it works in India: the LL.M., seminar courses, the judge made parts of the syllabus, and in modified form as two or three cases taught properly inside a lecture course.
Test yourself
1. Who developed the case method, where and when, and what is its central claim? Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard in 1870. Its claim is that law is learned by studying the decisions themselves and extracting the principle, so that the student acquires legal reasoning rather than receiving a statement of the rule.
2. Give three merits and three demerits. Merits: it teaches reasoning rather than recall; it uses the primary source; and it shows the law as it really is, with conflicts and ragged edges. Demerits: it is very slow against a wide syllabus; it requires small classes and prepared students; and it handles codified law awkwardly, which matters in India where contract, evidence and procedure are statutes.
3. Why does the method transplant badly into Indian legal education even where a college wants it? Because the assessment does not reward it. The method produces the ability to reason to a result on new facts, while an essay examination rewards a clean exposition of the settled rule, so students rationally prepare expositions; and because class sizes, casebooks and library access are usually not available.
The Case Method
4. Define ratio decidendi and distinguishing. The ratio decidendi is the reason for the decision, the part of a judgment that binds later courts. Distinguishing is showing that an earlier decision does not govern the present case because a material fact differs.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.