Write On!, 0419 WYBJ, Vol. 42 No. 3. 44
Author | Michael R. Smith, University of Wyoming College of Law Laramie, Wyoming. |
Position | Vol. 42 3 Pg. 44 |
Concluding
on Rules With Multiple Levels of Sub-Rules: Backing Out the
Same Way You Went In
Michael R. Smith, University of Wyoming College of Law
Laramie, Wyoming.
Sometimes
a legal writer will encounter an issue that is governed by an
applicable rule, which in turn has an applicable sub-rule,
which in turn has an applicable sub-sub-rule, and
(potentially) on and on. This type of issue involves vertical
analysis because the issue starts with a broad rule and then
goes incrementally deeper and narrower in steps with
sub-rules and sub-sub-rules, all of which derive from and
further explicate the initial broad rule. While most legal
writers in this situation can effectively work their way
through the progressive steps of deeper analysis, some legal
writers struggle with stating a conclusion once the analysis
reaches the bottom of the vertical chain. Indeed, it is easy
for a writer to get lost in this type of vertical analysis
and, as a consequence, fail to provide an effective
conclusion that takes into account the multiple analytical
steps. The solution to this problem, however, is fairly
simple: a writer should conclude on a rule with multiple
levels of sub-rules by backing out of the analysis through
the same steps the writer used to go into the analysis.
By way
of illustration, let's consider the opinion of Wyoming
Supreme Court Justice Lynne Boomgaarden in the recent case of
In re Estate of Frank,1 In April of 2018, the
appellant in Frank, "applied for a decree of
summary distribution of real property of the estate of her
grandfather, Chris Robert Frank (Decedent)," who had
died way back in 1990.2 The appellant believed she was
entitled to a share of her grandfather's estate because
this share was supposed to have passed to her over the years
through various family members byway of wills and intestate
succession but none of these earlier transfers had been
formally probated.3 Thus, the appellant sought to have the
district court recognize her interest and decree a summary
distribution of it.4 The district court, however, held that
the appellant lacked standing as an applicant under the
summary distribution statute and denied her
application.
The
issue on appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court was whether the
appellant did have the right to file an application for a
decree of summary distribution of her grandfather's
estate.6 In resolving this issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial