CA Q 5 Response
The plaintiff brought an action for the tort of "battery" against Brian Dailey. In this opinion, the court doesn't really ever precisely articulate what the cause of action was, but even from the very first sentence of the court’s opinion, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim was based upon an alleged "battery." As you read still further into the opinion, it becomes absolutely clear that the court is addressing a claim for the tort of “battery.”
When writing your brief of any given judicial opinion, it is not always clear at the very outset of the court’s opinion precisely what the substantive nature of the plaintiff’s claim is. Sometimes you may have to read further into the opinion in order to figure that out.
Often, in the haste of writing its decision, the court may not always articulate some of these important, although very basic, things. Although the case is being written in order to resolve a legal dispute between specific individual parties (who obviously already know what all of the claims were in their litigation), the resulting judicial opinion usually will also become part of the reported “case” law that will be read by other lawyers, judges and students of the law (who generally will not be familiar with all of the underlying details of the litigation). Therefore, it is important in almost all types of legal writing, including even the writing of appellate court opinions, to remember your audience (as well as even any potential audience) who will be reading your writing, and always write in such a way as to provide these important details for the reader.