If you are like most law students, you probably have a huge document called something like “Case list”, “Authorities”, or “Cases for revision”. It may be colour-coded. It may run to twenty pages. It may even look impressively organised.
It is still probably not helping you as much as you think.
The problem is not that you do not have enough cases. The problem is that most students build case lists for storage, not for use. They create something that proves they have read the material, but not something that helps them retrieve and apply it quickly under exam pressure.
That is why so many otherwise capable students freeze in problem questions. They know they have seen the right authority before, but they cannot pull it up fast enough, or they remember the case name without remembering what legal work the case actually does.
Here is the hard truth: an alphabetical case list is usually close to useless in an exam.
When you are halfway through a negligence question, your brain is not thinking: “What cases begin with C?” It is thinking: “I need authority on proximity”, “I need an exception”, “I need a distinction”, or “I need a modern case that limits this older rule”.
That is the shift that matters. A good case list is not a museum catalogue. It is a working tool.
Why alphabetical lists break down in exams
Alphabetical lists feel tidy because they are easy to compile. You finish a lecture, add a new case in the right place, and get a satisfying sense of order.
But exam questions are not organised alphabetically. They are organised by issues.
Suppose you are answering a contract problem involving an advert, a shop display and a last-minute revocation. The exam does not ask you to parade every case you know from A to Z. It asks you to identify the legal problems and attach the right authorities to each one.
An alphabetical list forces you to do two bits of thinking at once:
- work out the legal principle you need; and
- remember which case name corresponds to it.
That is inefficient. Under timed conditions, inefficiency is expensive.
A strong case list removes one stage of that process. You should be able to think:
- “advertisement”
- “invitation to treat or unilateral offer?”
- and immediately see the relevant cases grouped together.
That is why the best case lists are built around principles, disputes and exceptions, not around surnames.
The principle-first architecture
Stop building your list around case names. Build it around the smallest useful legal principle.
That means not just broad headings such as “Negligence” or “Offer and acceptance”, but narrower sub-headings that reflect the actual issues that come up in questions.
So instead of this:
- Contract
- Carlill
- Boots
- Partridge
- Felthouse
Try this:
- Advertisements are usually invitations to treat
- Partridge v Crittenden [1968]
- Advertisements can amount to unilateral offers
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
- Display of goods is an invitation to treat
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953]
- Silence does not usually amount to acceptance
- Felthouse v Bindley [1862]
This sounds obvious, but it changes everything. Instead of revising case names and hoping you remember what they stand for, you revise the rule first and attach the authority second.
That is much closer to how you actually write an answer.
How small should a “principle” be?
Students often make one of two mistakes:
- they go too broad, so one heading contains twenty unrelated cases; or
- they go too narrow, so every case gets its own bespoke category and the list becomes unusable.
A good test is this: could you realistically discuss these cases together in one paragraph of an answer?
If yes, they probably belong in the same cluster. If not, split them.
For example, in tort, “duty of care” is often too broad on its own. Better clusters might be:
- general neighbour principle
- incremental approach
- pure economic loss
- omissions
- psychiatric harm
- public authority liability
That way, when the issue appears, you are not rummaging through a warehouse labelled “Negligence”. You are opening the correct drawer.
Use fact triggers instead of mini case summaries
Most case lists are far too wordy. Students paste in half a textbook paragraph and call it revision. The result is a document that looks detailed but cannot be scanned quickly.
What you need instead is a fact trigger.
A fact trigger is a brutally short phrase that makes the case instantly recognisable in your head.
Examples:
- Donoghue v Stevenson – snail in ginger beer
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee – doctor not negligent if supported by responsible body
- Miller v Jackson – cricket balls into neighbour’s garden
- R v Brown – consent and sadomasochistic injuries
- Carlill – smoke ball advert and reward
If you cannot reduce a case to a few words, you probably do not yet know which facts actually matter.
That matters in exams because you are not rewarded for reciting the plot of a case. You are rewarded for selecting the feature of the case that supports your argument.
Add a “what this case is doing” label
This is one of the most useful additions most students never make.
For each case, include a short note saying what role it plays in an answer. Not the whole ratio, just its function.
For example:
- leading authority
- classic illustration
- modern refinement
- exception
- limitation
- distinction
- policy-heavy case
- overruled authority
- minority/dissent worth mentioning
This matters because not all cases are equally useful. Some are your main authority. Some are there to show nuance. Some are only useful if the facts are awkward. Some look famous but are actually poor choices in exams because they are too broad or too dated unless carefully handled.
If you know what a case is for, you are less likely to throw it into an answer just because you recognise the name.
Build chains, not piles
A weak case list is a pile of disconnected authorities. A strong one shows how the law moves.
For example, rather than listing negligence authorities as isolated entries, show the relationship:
- Foundation: Donoghue v Stevenson
- Retreat from wide principle: Anns v Merton London Borough Council
- Restriction and reformulation: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
- Modern caution in novel situations: later public authority and omission cases
That lets you do something many students struggle with: explain not just the rule, but the trajectory of the law.
Examiners notice this. Even in problem questions, the better answers often show awareness that a rule is not static. If a line of authority has narrowed, expanded, or become policy-sensitive, your case list should show that movement.
Think of your list as less like a phone book and more like a map.
Separate the must-cite cases from the “nice if there’s time” cases
Another problem with student case lists is that everything sits on the same level. A minor illustration gets the same visual weight as a leading House of Lords or Supreme Court authority.
That is a mistake.
Create a simple ranking system, such as:
- A — must know and likely to anchor an answer
- B — useful supporting case
- C — specialist, essay-friendly or niche
- D — lecturer favourite, but probably not essential unless specifically relevant
This prevents two common revision disasters:
- spending too much time memorising obscure authorities; and
- missing the handful of cases that actually carry most of the marks.
If you want a case list that helps in exams, it must show you where to spend your effort.
Include a “danger” column for cases students misuse
This is perhaps the most underrated technique of all.
Some cases are not difficult because the rule is complicated. They are difficult because students misapply them.
Add a column marked something like Common mistake or Danger point.
Examples:
- Carlill – do not treat every advert as an offer
- Caparo – do not present as a universal mechanical test in every negligence context
- Bolam – do not ignore later qualification and judicial scrutiny
- Felthouse – silence is not acceptance, but do not overstate it where conduct may amount to acceptance
- Rylands v Fletcher – do not casually use it when ordinary negligence fits better
This is practical because exam performance is not only about remembering the right cases. It is also about not using the wrong one in the wrong way.
A list that warns you away from common errors is much more valuable than one that simply stores information.
Use fact patterns, not module weeks
A good test of your list is whether it tracks the shape of exam questions, not the structure of your teaching timetable.
Teaching is often organised by week:
- week 3: duty of care
- week 4: breach
- week 5: causation
Exams are often messier:
- a careless statement
- economic loss
- assumption of responsibility
- reliance
- a possible omission
- maybe a public authority issue
That means your list should include cross-links. A case may sit mainly in one section, but also need tagging elsewhere.
For example, a single authority may be relevant to:
- duty
- policy
- public bodies
- omissions
- proximity
If you are working digitally, use tags or repeated cross-references. If you are working on paper, add a “see also” line.
The point is to make retrieval easy from more than one direction.
The “deployability” test
Every case on your list should answer one question:
When would I actually use this in an answer?
If you cannot answer that, the case is not exam-ready.
Try writing one short deployment line for each case:
- “Use where defendant argues advert was not intended to bind.”
- “Use where claimant seeks to rely on omission rather than positive act.”
- “Use where court may be reluctant to recognise a novel duty.”
- “Use to distinguish a display of goods from a clear promise to pay.”
This turns your list from passive revision into active answer-building.
It also helps weaker students stop doing something that examiners see all the time: citing a case accurately but irrelevantly.
The “flip” test: can you find the case from the rule and the rule from the case?
A case list that genuinely works in exams should pass two tests.
The rule-to-case test
If someone says “silence and acceptance”, can you get to Felthouse quickly?
The case-to-rule test
If someone says “Felthouse”, can you immediately say why it matters and where its limits are?
Many students only practise the second. They can recognise case names on a reading list but cannot travel in the other direction under pressure.
Your revision should force both movements. That is why principle-first organisation is so effective: it trains retrieval in the direction exams require.
Make room for judicial disagreement and academic criticism
If you want stronger essay performance, or simply a more sophisticated answer style, add one short line for criticism or tension.
This does not need to become a literature review. One line is enough.
For example:
- criticised as overly formalistic
- policy concerns dominated doctrinal clarity
- later authority narrows practical reach
- dissent suggests a stricter approach
- unclear whether principle is truly generalisable
This is useful because many students separate “case revision” from “critical analysis” as though they are different tasks. They are not. The sharpest answers often grow out of seeing where a rule is unstable, controversial or limited.
A case list that includes these pressure points is doing far more work for you than a basic name-and-facts sheet.
A simple structure that works
You do not need a complicated app or an elaborate Notion dashboard. A straightforward table is usually enough.
| Principle | Case | Fact trigger | What the case is doing | Use when | Danger point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display of goods is an invitation to treat | Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] | Self-service shop | Classic authority | Shop display issue | Do not confuse with offer made at till |
| Advertisement usually invitation to treat | Partridge v Crittenden [1968] | Advert for birds | General rule | Advert lacks commitment | Not all adverts are invitations to treat |
| Advertisement can be unilateral offer | Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] | Smoke ball reward | Exception to general rule | Clear promise plus intention to be bound | Do not cite for ordinary sales adverts |
| Silence is not acceptance | Felthouse v Bindley [1862] | Uncle’s horse | Classic limitation | Party argues no reply meant agreement | Conduct may still amount to acceptance in some cases |
That table is already more useful than most twenty-page alphabetical lists because it is built around retrieval and use.
Keep a one-page “skeleton list” for each topic
Your full case list can be detailed. But for revision and exam preparation, you should also have a compressed version.
For each major topic, create a one-page sheet containing only:
- the core principles
- the leading cases
- one exception
- one limitation
- one modern or controversial development
Why is this helpful? Because in the final days before an exam, you are not really trying to absorb more information. You are trying to strengthen the pathways that let you retrieve and apply what you already know.
A skeleton list forces prioritisation. It also reveals where you have been collecting authorities without understanding which ones actually matter.
Build your list after lectures, not at the end of term
One reason case lists become unmanageable is that students treat them as an admin task to be done once revision starts.
That is too late.
The best time to build or update your list is after each lecture/seminar, when you already know:
- which cases were central
- which distinctions came up in discussion
- which examples confused people
- what your tutor emphasised as examinable
At that point, add the case under the correct principle and write the deployment line while it is fresh.
This takes ten minutes then and saves hours later.
What to do if a case fits more than one principle
This happens constantly, especially in public law, criminal law and tort.
Do not force yourself to choose a single “correct” location. Real legal problems overlap. Your list should reflect that.
Instead:
- place the full entry where the case is most central; and
- add cross-references elsewhere.
For example:
- full entry under “omissions”
- cross-reference under “duty of care”
- cross-reference under “public authority liability”
The aim is not purity. The aim is retrieval.
A weekly maintenance routine that stops the list becoming a mess
A case list only works if it stays lean. Every few weeks, tidy it using three questions:
- Would I realistically cite this in an exam?
- Does this case duplicate another authority that does the same job better?
- Is the principle heading clear enough that I could find it in under five seconds?
If the answer to the first is no, cut or demote it.
If the answer to the second is yes, keep the stronger case and move the weaker one to a supporting note.
If the answer to the third is no, rename the heading.
This is how good revision notes are made: not by endless expansion, but by selective compression.
The five-second find test
Here is a simple challenge.
Ask a friend to read out a legal issue, not a case name. For example:
- assumption of responsibility
- silence and acceptance
- indirect intention
- occupier and child trespasser
- novus actus interveniens
Now try to find the relevant authority in your notes within five seconds.
If you cannot, your case list is still organised for storage rather than performance.
This sounds harsh, but it is incredibly useful. A revision tool should be judged by whether it works under timed conditions, not by whether it looks impressive when printed.
What this looks like in an actual exam answer
A principle-first list helps you write tighter paragraphs because you stop dropping in cases randomly.
Instead of this:
In relation to offers, there are a number of cases including Carlill, Boots and Partridge.
You are more likely to write something like this:
The advert is unlikely to amount to an offer because advertisements are generally treated as invitations to treat, as in Partridge v Crittenden. However, where the wording shows a clear promise intended to be acted upon, an advert may operate as a unilateral offer, as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. The present facts look closer to Partridge because there is no definite undertaking to pay upon performance.
That is better because the case is doing work. It is not just being displayed.
Final thoughts
Your case list should not be a record of everything you have ever read. It should be a tool that helps you think, locate authority quickly and build arguments under pressure.
If it is organised alphabetically, it may feel neat, but it is not organised in the way your mind needs during an exam. Exams do not ask, “What comes after Bolam?” They ask, “What principle applies here, and what authority supports it?”
So build your list around that reality.
Group cases by principle. Make the principle narrow enough to be useful. Use fact triggers, not long plot summaries. Show what each case is doing. Mark danger points. Add cross-links. Rank importance. Keep a one-page skeleton sheet. And test whether you can find what you need in seconds, not minutes.
A good case list does not just help you revise. It helps you write.
