To memorise a law case usefully, learn the issue it answers, the rule or reasoning it supports and the facts that make it relevant. Then practise recalling that connection and applying it to a changed scenario. A case name without a usable legal point is difficult to turn into an exam answer.
You do not need every detail of every judgment at the same level. Follow your course’s expectations for authorities and citation, and give most attention to the cases central to the topics you are studying.
What should go on a case card?
Use this small template:
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Case and citation | Enough to identify the authority accurately |
| Issue | The legal question it helps answer |
| Significant facts | Only the facts needed to understand that issue |
| Principle | A short, accurate statement of the relevant point |
| Limit | An exception, distinction or warning against overstatement |
| Recall prompt | A question you can answer with the card hidden |
Keep the principle in your own words and check it against the judgment or a reliable course source. Separate the court’s decision from an illustration or opinion you have added.
Worked card 1: a counter-offer
Case: Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334.
Issue: Can a person accept an original offer after rejecting it with a counter-offer?
Significant facts: A proposed purchaser responded with a lower price and later tried to accept the original offer.
Principle: A counter-offer rejects the original offer, which cannot then be accepted unless renewed.
Limit: Distinguish a counter-offer from an inquiry that does not reject the original terms.
Recall prompt: “A buyer replies ‘only if you include delivery’. What must I decide about that reply before considering a later acceptance?”
Check the judgment in Hyde v Wrench. Notice that the card is organised around a legal question, rather than a memorable story alone.
Worked card 2: a reward advertisement
Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.
Issue: Can an advertisement be a contractual offer accepted by performance?
Significant facts: A company advertised a reward linked to using its product as directed and nevertheless contracting influenza.
Principle: A sufficiently definite reward promise can be an offer accepted by performing its conditions.
Limit: The case does not make every advertisement an offer. The wording and objective commitment matter.
Recall prompt: “What would I look for to distinguish an ordinary sales advert from a definite reward promise?”
Read Carlill, then try changing the advertisement into a vague statement of confidence in a product. Identify why the analysis may change.
Worked card 3: evidence of intention
Case: R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.
Issue: When may a jury find intention in a murder case where the consequence was not the defendant’s stated purpose?
Principle: The relevant direction concerns death or serious bodily harm being a virtual certainty, barring unforeseen intervention, and the defendant appreciating that.
Limit: A substantial risk is not the same as virtual certainty. This is not a general instruction to treat any foreseeable consequence as intended.
Recall prompt: “What is missing if the facts show awareness of a possibility of serious harm, but not virtual certainty?”
Check the House of Lords’ judgment in Woollin. For cases involving a carefully formulated test, preserve its qualifications when shortening the note.
How do you practise with the cards?
Cover the answer and respond to the prompt aloud or in writing. Check it immediately. If you omitted a qualification, correct the card or your answer and return to the point later.
Try recalling in both directions. A case name should prompt its legal use; a legal problem should prompt a relevant authority. The second direction is particularly useful when you will not be handed the case name in the question.
Avoid accepting vague recognition as success. “I know that one” is weaker than explaining the rule and identifying a fact that would distinguish it.
Return to cards on separate occasions and adjust the gap around difficulty. Spacing research supports distributing review over time, but does not prescribe one ideal schedule for law cases.
What if two cases seem to contradict each other?
Put them side by side. Compare the legal issue, material facts, court, date and scope of the reasoning. Are they applying different rules, distinguishing facts or showing a change in the law?
Do not force a distinction that you cannot explain. Check the judgment, your teaching materials or ask your tutor. A paired card saying “When does each authority apply?” can be more useful than two disconnected summaries.
Move from remembering to answering
Once you can recall a case, use it in a short problem or essay paragraph. State the point it supports and connect it to the question. Our problem-question guide explains that next step.
Law Answered+ gives you access to all our revision guides and casebooks covering the full syllabus, with MCQ Master included. You have the complete library for your revision in one membership: use the casebooks to check authorities, the guides to understand the wider topic and the questions to test yourself. MCQ Master includes case and legislation questions, so you can practise retrieving the legal connection rather than repeatedly rereading the same note.
Put the criminal-law card into context with intention and recklessness: worked examples.