> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-3-statutory-analysis-and-application/close-up-view-of-statutory-analysis.md).

# "Close Up" View of Statutory Analysis

In a statutory analysis, you must show how a certain statute applies to the facts of a case. **When you do this, make sure you stick to the specific language of the statutory elements (and any definitions).** Don’t try to go beyond what the statute itself says by adding your own “take” on the situation. 

Your only job is to explain how the facts “match” (or don’t match) the statutory elements. Explain specifically how they meet these requirements by referencing the specific language/elements of the statute and then matching them up. 

For example, let’s take the statutory language of defamation:

> ### <mark style="color:blue;">**Statue of Defamation**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">To create liability for defamation there must be:</mark>
>
> * <mark style="color:blue;">(a)  a false and defamatory statement concerning another;</mark>
> * <mark style="color:blue;">(b)  an unprivileged publication to a third party;</mark>
> * <mark style="color:blue;">(c)  fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher \[with respect to the act of publication]; and</mark>
> * <mark style="color:blue;">(d)  either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.</mark>

We can also look at definitions that help expand on some of these elements:

> <mark style="color:blue;">**§ 559. Defamatory Communication Defined**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">**§ 566 Actional Communication Stated as Opinion**</mark>&#x20;
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">A defamatory communication may consist of a statement in the form of an opinion, but a statement of this nature is actionable only if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">**§ 581. Transmission of Defamation Published by Third Person.**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">(1) . . . one who only delivers or transmits defamatory matter published by a third person is subject to liability if, but only if, he knows or has reason to know of its defamatory character. . .</mark>&#x20;
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">**§ 12. Reason to Know; Should Know**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">. . . “reason to know” \[means] the actor has information from which a person of reasonable intelligence . . . would infer that the fact in question exists, or that such person would govern his conduct upon the assumption that such fact exists.</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">**§ 13. Negligence Defined**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:blue;">A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.</mark><br>

Now, let’s take this situation:

> <mark style="color:orange;">Toni and Jordan had been planning their wedding for over a year and were excited to order a custom wedding cake from Blissful Bakery, a highly-rated local bakery known for elaborate designs. They visited the bakery for a consultation and were impressed by the photos and the staff’s enthusiasm.</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:orange;">On the day of the wedding, however, the cake arrived late, looked nothing like the design they had approved, and several guests became sick after eating it. Frustrated and feeling that their special day had been ruined, Toni and Jordan decided to leave a detailed review online to warn other couples about their experience. They posted it on multiple platforms, including Google Reviews, Yelp, and social media.</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:orange;">They posted the following review online using their real names:</mark>
>
> > *<mark style="color:$info;">“Avoid Blissful Bakery! The owner, Carolyn, is a complete scam artist. She engages in unethical business practices and is likely using her business as an illegal money laundering front of some kind, since there’s no way she’s a legitimate baker. I’m also shocked they haven’t been shut down by the health department. Not only was our wedding cake a complete mess, but several of our wedding guests got food poisoning from the cake.</mark>*\
> > \&#xNAN;*<mark style="color:$info;">I’ve since heard that Carolyn regularly uses expired ingredients to make her cakes more cheaply, even though she charges outrageous prices. She also does a bunch of other shady business practices (so definitely don’t give her your credit card info!). Do yourself a favor and just STAY AWAY!”</mark>*
>
> <mark style="color:orange;">**Almost a week later, Toni and Jordan received a letter from Carolyn’s lawyer stating that she is suing them for defamation.**</mark>

Let's say we need to figure out a likely outcome for Carolyn's case by analyzing the statute's application to the facts.&#x20;

One example of this case’s analysis might look like this:&#x20;

{% hint style="success" %} <mark style="background-color:blue;">In order to establish liability for defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendants made false and defamatory statements that, while in the form of an opinion, imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion</mark>. <mark style="background-color:yellow;">When Toni and Jordan implied that Carolyn was participating in illegal business operations and unsafe cooking conditions, these unproven and false statements were presented as “facts” rather than mere opinion.</mark> &#x20;

<mark style="background-color:blue;">Furthermore, liability for defamation requires that these statements harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with them.</mark>  <mark style="background-color:yellow;">By publishing such negative statements about Carolyn’s personal and business character on popular social media review sites, these statements present a clear harm to the reputation of Carolyn’s bakery by deterring people from doing business with her.</mark>&#x20;

<mark style="background-color:blue;">Liability for defamation also must also show that the fault of the plaintiffs amounts at least to negligence with respect to the publication, meaning that they failed to to behave with the level of care expected by a reasonable person under the same circumstances.</mark> <mark style="background-color:yellow;">Here, Toni and Jordan clearly failed to exercise reasonable care by publishing accusations that they had no firsthand knowledge of, nor did they have reason to believe them to be based in fact. As such, their comments fall outside a level of ordinary prudence.</mark>&#x20;
{% endhint %}

<mark style="background-color:blue;">The words highlighted in blue reference to the specific language of the statute’s elements.</mark>

<mark style="background-color:yellow;">The words highlighted in yellow explain how that specific element is or is not met in this case.</mark> <br>

***

<br>