Socratic drills on real cases — graded the way your professor will.
1,284 briefs generated by students this week
Stop spending 40 minutes on a brief. Get a clean, source-traced version in under 2 minutes — then actually understand it.
63 of 65 ready. Every sentence links back to the original opinion.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1954
247 briefed this week · 1m 48s
Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
214 briefed this week · 2m 04s
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division · 1990
168 briefed this week · 1m 39s
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. · 1969
142 briefed this week · 1m 52s
Mike splits the opinion at its own seams — majority, each concurrence, each dissent — runs five isolated passes, then checks the holding actually follows from the rationale before anything is stored.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 21-1333. Argued Oct. 4 · Decided Jan. 18On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit. Summary judgment reversed below;reviewed de novo.JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.Where a contract term is facially ambiguous and theparties' course of dealing resolves it, extrinsicevidence is admissible.Because the writing was silent, and because silencecannot displace ten years of consistent practice,the parol evidence rule does not bar admission.JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in the judgment.JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.
Cert. from the Ninth Circuit; summary judgment reversed. Reviewed de novo. span traced
When a contract term is facially ambiguous and course of dealing resolves it, extrinsic evidence is admissible. span traced
Writing silent → practice controls → parol evidence rule not triggered. span traced
Gorsuch, concurring in judgment · Alito, dissenting (minority rule). span traced
05 — The Sandbox
Fact pattern · Contracts
On a December evening at a roadside restaurant, two acquaintances fall into a familiar argument over a 471-acre farm. After forty minutes of back-and-forth, and several drinks between them, one writes on the back of a restaurant check that he agrees to sell the farm for $50,000 cash. The buyer objects that the writing binds only one spouse, so the seller tears it up, rewrites it as "we agree," and has his wife sign.
The buyer pockets the paper, offers five dollars to seal it, and starts arranging financing and a title examination the next morning. The seller then refuses to convey, insisting the whole evening was a bluff and that he never meant a word of it. Neither party disputes that both had been drinking; both recall the evening in detail.
Untimed · No signup
Applications are open for the founding cohort. Reason against T-14 rubrics, get graded in seconds, and drill the reps most law students never get.