General ⇒ Laying out a Document

[sparktech]

Hi all,

First post on this forum so here goes!

I do legal studies at college and was wanting to lay out my case briefs in the way shown in the attached image. Can someone please suggest a way of doing this?

Also, I'd like the code for each case (in the top left corner, eg. #1, #2 etc) to automatically increment with each case I add to the document.

I'd like the formatting to be the same (e.g. underlined case name, bold subheadings etc).

I've got a basic understanding of LaTeX, but not sure how to achieve something like this!

Thanks

[localghost]

I don't see much more than nested {description} and {enumerate} environments. They can be customized quite easy by enumitem.


Best regards and welcome to t board
Thorsten

[sparktech]

Thanks localghost. Would it be possible to give me an example of how to set out this document?

I've given it a try and attached the results. But I'm not happy with some parts of it. For example, I'd like stop words from being hyphenated, keep the rest of the paragraph in line with the first line and reduce the size of the text in the \section command.

Thanks for your help!

[Johannes_B]

Well, a good way to help you is to change the code you have been using. You did not do that.
Have a look at Minimal Working Example and post your code using the code-button.

Help us help you. Right know, we could just guess.

[sparktech]

Of course, that makes sense! Here's the code for my document so far.

Code: Select all

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\begin{document}

\section{Sam v ACC \underline{\emph{Court of Appeal}}}
\begin{description}
\item[Facts]{
Deshan Sam was born with cerebral palsy (CP) because his oxygen supply was restricted during birth. There were seven possible causes for this. Whatever the cause, Sam’s counsel argue the oxygen deprivation was an accident because it was an external application of force (s25(a)(i)) to the fetus or because the fetus was exposed to extremes of environment (s25(e)). The argument assumes that, as a fetus, Deshan is a person for the purposes of the Act. ACC argue on the plain meaning of the words Deshan’s CP is not an accident.​
District Court held Deshan does not have cover as the lack of a probable cause means the ‘cause’ of the accident is unclear. Also, since an unborn fetus is inside its mother, it can’t have an external force applied to it and it can’t be exposed to extremes of environment.}
\item[Issue]{
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item{Was it a breach of the Act}
		\item{Was the doctor culpable?}
		\item{Can damages be claimed?}
	\end{enumerate}
}
\item[Decision]{looking at (a), the court held that if all of the probable causes bit within the definition of ‘accident’, then, on the BoP, that requirement is satisfied. Note that the burden to establish causes is on the claimant. Looking at (c), the court held the born alive principle (fetus has no legal rights until birth) means a fetus can be retrospectively treated as a person. Looking at (b), the court found, on the ordinary meaning of the words, force cannot be applied to the fetus when it’s inside the mother. To allow this interpretation would be to allow forces internal to the mother to be covered. Furthermore, the ordinary meaning of the word environment refers to things occurring out in the world and not in the human body.
​Cover declined. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.}
\item[Principle]{
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item{multiple probable causes can establish an ‘accident’ as long as they all fall in the meaning of s25.}
		\item{the born alive principle means a fetus can be retrospectively treated as a person.}
	\end{enumerate}
}
\end{description}

\section{Queenstown Lakes District Council v Palmer \underline{\emph{Court of Appeal}}}
\begin{description}
\item[Facts]{
The Palmers were on a rafting trip when the raft capsized and Mrs. Palmer drowned. Witnessing his wife’s death inflicted mental injuries on Mr. Palmer, who claims common law damages. Initially, his claim was struck out because of the bar in s14 (now s317). However, this was reversed by the High Court and is appealed in this case. It is agreed Palmer’s claim for exemplary damages are acceptable (refer s319 in the 2001 Act).
The appellants argued s14 bars secondary victims like Palmer from claiming common law damages. However Palmer was claiming for a mental injury that was not accompanied by a personal injury.}
\item[Issue]{
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item{Does s14 bar Palmer from claiming common law damages for the mental injuries inflicted on him by his wife’s death?}
	\end{enumerate}
}
\item[Decision]{the court found Palmer was claiming damages for the mental injuries he suffered. He was not claiming for any of the injuries suffered by his wife – this is barred by s14. Rather his wife’s death provides the factual backdrop for his claim. Furthermore, s4 (now s20) requires the mental injury to be accompanied by personal injury. This means Palmer’s mental injury isn’t covered by the Act and he should be allowed to claim common law damages for the mental injury only. If this were not possible, then Palmer wouldn’t be able to claim ACC compensation and would loose his right to sue at common law, which would be unfair on him and against the purpose of Act.}
\item[Principle]{
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item{the statute’s ordinary words must be interpreted in line with the context of the surrounding provisions and statute.}
		\item{if the mental injury isn’t covered by the Act, then the Act isn’t a bar to seeking common law damages.}
	\end{enumerate}
}
\end{description}
\end{document}