If this isn't a teacher's exploration, then the usual way is "I.R.A.C.

" (as taught in law school):I - Issues of the case

The facts and legal issues presented by the case and solved by the court.
R - Review of the law
Review the current state of the law (statutes + precedent cases) as related to the legal
facts/issues of the case.
A - Application of the law
Apply the law to the case (not the other way around). What law is principally applied to the
case? Which ones are secondary laws as applied? What is still open to reinterpretation or
argument or reapplication of the law?
C - Conclusion
What are ultimate pros and cons of the case? Is there any constitutional or other
significance of the case?
In law, the conclusion is not like the conclusion of the 'standard' essay. In legal conclusions,
it very often means something like "this case is worth a shit because A, B and C, and
therefore the plaintiff/defendant is should be found guilty or not guilty, or entitled to X
damages," if you get my meaning.