E (Explanation). Your Explanation, which immediately follows your Rule, should explain relevant nuances of the law and the various factors that a court will likely examine when considering the sub-issue.
1. Try to keep your Explanation as brief as possible, only including further discussion of the Rule that is necessary for the reader to understand the nature of the law. Your Explanation of the Rule can be as short as a single sentence and should probably be no more than three to four sentences, unless the issue is particularly complex and warrants a lengthier discussion.
2. Use your Explanation to identify the factors that a court would likely consider when analyzing the sub-issue at hand. In this way, your Explanation is like a mini-Umbrella, providing the reader with a road map for this particular sub-rule. Identifying the relevant factors that underlie your sub-rule is not always easy. Sometimes the law identifies these factors for you--perhaps because the statute at issue contains discrete requirements. More often, you must identify the relevant factors at issue by engaging in extensive research. Courts will often articulate what factors control an issue, but often times different courts will use different factors. Your job is to distill what factors you think are most relevant and to inform the reader accordingly.
3. Once you have identified the relevant factors, present the factors in a list to make it clear to the reader what you will be analyzing throughout the subsection. I recommend a numbered list to draw attention to the factors that you plan to discuss and to ensure that the reader understands that the factors are distinct form one another.
4. Most importantly, once you have laid out factors in your Explanation, proceed to discuss each factor in separate Analysis paragraphs in the same order that you listed them in your Explanation. At the start of each of those Analysis paragraphs, include clear topic sentences to alert the reader of the factor that you are discussing, using common language in both your Explanation and your topic sentences at the start of your Analysis paragraphs.
Sample Explanation:
(Explaining the Trade Secret sub-rule from Rule)
In determining whether Ms. Petersen's PPI System is a trade secret, a court will weigh the extent to which (1) the PPI System was known outside of PPI, (2) the PPJ System was known to employees within PPI, (3) Ms. Petersen attempted to guard the PPI System's secrecy, (4) PPI increased in value by having the PPI System remain secret, (5) Ms. Petersen expended time and money in developing the PPI System, and (6) other fitness businesses would need to expend time and money to acquire or develop a similar system. Porter Industries, Inc. v. Higgins, 680 P.2d 1339, 1341 (Colo. App. 1984). Courts balance facts relating to each of these factors, and no one factor is dispositive of whether a trade secret could or could not exist. Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler, 338 F.3d 1125, 1132 (l0th Cir. 2003).
1. Try to keep your Explanation as brief as possible, only including further discussion of the Rule that is necessary for the reader to understand the nature of the law. Your Explanation of the Rule can be as short as a single sentence and should probably be no more than three to four sentences, unless the issue is particularly complex and warrants a lengthier discussion.
2. Use your Explanation to identify the factors that a court would likely consider when analyzing the sub-issue at hand. In this way, your Explanation is like a mini-Umbrella, providing the reader with a road map for this particular sub-rule. Identifying the relevant factors that underlie your sub-rule is not always easy. Sometimes the law identifies these factors for you--perhaps because the statute at issue contains discrete requirements. More often, you must identify the relevant factors at issue by engaging in extensive research. Courts will often articulate what factors control an issue, but often times different courts will use different factors. Your job is to distill what factors you think are most relevant and to inform the reader accordingly.
3. Once you have identified the relevant factors, present the factors in a list to make it clear to the reader what you will be analyzing throughout the subsection. I recommend a numbered list to draw attention to the factors that you plan to discuss and to ensure that the reader understands that the factors are distinct form one another.
4. Most importantly, once you have laid out factors in your Explanation, proceed to discuss each factor in separate Analysis paragraphs in the same order that you listed them in your Explanation. At the start of each of those Analysis paragraphs, include clear topic sentences to alert the reader of the factor that you are discussing, using common language in both your Explanation and your topic sentences at the start of your Analysis paragraphs.
Sample Explanation:
(Explaining the Trade Secret sub-rule from Rule)
In determining whether Ms. Petersen's PPI System is a trade secret, a court will weigh the extent to which (1) the PPI System was known outside of PPI, (2) the PPJ System was known to employees within PPI, (3) Ms. Petersen attempted to guard the PPI System's secrecy, (4) PPI increased in value by having the PPI System remain secret, (5) Ms. Petersen expended time and money in developing the PPI System, and (6) other fitness businesses would need to expend time and money to acquire or develop a similar system. Porter Industries, Inc. v. Higgins, 680 P.2d 1339, 1341 (Colo. App. 1984). Courts balance facts relating to each of these factors, and no one factor is dispositive of whether a trade secret could or could not exist. Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler, 338 F.3d 1125, 1132 (l0th Cir. 2003).
