What means &quot;that the claimant fails to meet the required standard for the prima facie case&quot;?
<p>Kindly see the emboldened sentence. What does it mean? Just because &quot;facts fall under the general rule, but not the more nuanced cases&quot; doesn't mean your facts don't relate to those cases. Analogies are never a perfect fit. I think the author wrote this, but I can't remember which page. If every new factual matrix fell under nuanced cases, then we wouldn't need judges.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>      During the ‘A’ [Application] portion of your essay, you are, in a sense, justifying
the inclusion of every legal reference you have made in the ‘R’ [Rules]
portion of your essay. If you cannot draw a direct link from a fact
to any of the cases and statutes you have mentioned, then reconsider
whether you should include that fact in your essay. This is what is
meant by having the facts in the back of your mind as you write (or,
even better, as you plan) the rules section of your paper. Of course,
the reverse is true as well: do not introduce a case or statute unless it
relates to a fact you intend to discuss. If you take the time to think
about the application step before you begin writing your essay, then
you know that you are introducing each of your cases and statutes
for a reason. The ‘A’ step is when you explain that reason.<br />
      Once it comes time to discuss the sub-issues that are primarily in
dispute, you may not have to note how the facts fall under the general,
leading precedent for that area of law. Instead, you will focus
on explaining how the facts apply to the more specific cases that flesh
out the bare bones of the general precepts of law. Because you have
explained in the ‘R’ section that these cases are merely more specific
manifestations of the general standard, you often can get by without
evaluating the facts with reference to the general cases. Alternatively,
you might find that you can demonstrate how your facts fall under
the general rule, but not the more nuanced cases. <strong>This means that the
claimant fails to meet the required standard for the <em>prima facie</em> case.</strong>
Use your judgment as you balance what needs to be said versus what
can be implied. As stated earlier, it is dangerous to rely implicitly on
an examiner’s understanding of your mental processes, but there are
times when you do not need to spell out everything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stacie Strong <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/s-i-strong-50b82832/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BA English literature (UC Davis 1986), MPW (USC 1990), JD (Duke 1994), PhD Law (Cambridge 2002), DPhil (Oxford 2003)</a>. <em>How to Write Law Essays &amp; Exams</em> 5th Edition (2018). p 94.</p>

<p>I take it that the author is saying that when a set of facts fit the general rules of an area of law, but do <strong>not</strong> fit the &quot;more nuanced cases&quot; of a specific kind of law, that indicates that those  facts will not make out a <em>prima facie</em> case in that specific area. That may or may not be a correct statement of legal theory—your point about new issues fitting general rules but not nuanced precedents has some merit—but that is what the author is saying here.</p>

legal-writing