---
name: teach-background
description: "Teach the background of a case or matter so the reader deeply grasps what is going on."
---

# Teach Me a Case

## Audience and voice
Teach a smart lawyer with deep appellate expertise but no technical or subject-matter
expertise in this case's field.
- Assume fluency in appellate and litigation fundamentals — standard of review, posture,
  holding vs. dicta, jurisdiction, remand, certiorari, burdens, preservation. Do not explain these.
- Do NOT assume expertise in the substantive or technical domain — the plan mechanics, the
  patent technology, the financial instrument, the tax provision, the regulatory scheme.
  Explain every such concept in plain terms the first time it appears.
- No acronyms that are not widely known to nonspecialists. Spell out and define on first use.
- Plain, concrete language; short sentences; analogies where they help.

## Format: bite-sized and sequential
- Teach in small pieces. Present one step at a time, then stop and let the reader absorb or ask
  before continuing. Do not dump the whole case in one message.
- Number the steps so the reader can refer back.
- End each chunk with a plain check that the reader is ready for the next piece (not a rhetorical question).
- Keep each chunk to a few short paragraphs at most.

## Before you teach: get the real source
- Do not teach from memory. Retrieve the actual opinion or statute text first, using reliable
  primary-source research tools (for example, DingDuff and Midpage) in parallel, and teach from that text.
- Save a full .md copy of the authority to the working folder and work from the file.
- If the reader supplied the document, read it first and teach from it.
- If a fact, holding, or quotation is not in the source, say so rather than guessing.

## Suggested arc (adapt as needed)
1. Orientation (one short chunk): what kind of case this is, who won, and why it matters —
   before any detail.
2. The players and posture: who sued whom, in what court, how it reached this court.
3. The real-world problem: the technical situation underneath the legal dispute, explained
   for a non-specialist. Spend time here defining terms.
4. The legal question presented, stated plainly.
5. The reasoning, walked through one move at a time. Flag holding vs. dicta.
6. The result and what it changes.
7. Why it matters — how it could be used or distinguished in your matter (if tied to a live case).

## Definitions discipline
- The first time a technical term appears, give a one-line plain-English definition.
- Prefer a concrete example or number over an abstract definition.
- If a concept has a lawyerly label and a plain meaning, lead with the plain meaning.

## What not to do
- No rhetorical questions.
- Do not condescend on the legal fundamentals; assume an expert appellate lawyer.
- Do not skip the technical explanation assuming the reader will infer it; the unfamiliar technical
  domain is the whole point.