I see this pretty frequently in Quimbee briefs, where the issue is way too specific, and is pretty much the analysis/rule written in question form. The issue shouldn't be "Should what did happen, have happened?" followed by a yes or a no. I feel like the Quimbee system is to force the issues into a yes or no question, which is not how most of these cases function...The issue could be "What elements constitute false imprisonment?" or, "How do courts determine whether one is liable for false imprisonment?" But, "To determine whether an actor is liable for False Imprisonment, do courts apply a 3 factor test considering the actor's intent to confine, the results of their actions, and the victim's consciousness or harm of the confinement?" That's not an issue.

This is the worst one I've seen so far:

Zaman v Felton, 98 A.3d. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/zaman-v-felton

Please examine the issue. That's not really THE issue, and it's barely an issue.

If my professor asks "what's the issue in this case?" and I give them that answer, they will not like it. They'll just say no, that's the court's test, and that I used Jeopardy tactics to formulate my answer. Sometimes the issue actually is the rule/governing law in the form of a question, sometimes it's written right there. But this one is too specific, it's the rule/analysis written in question form. Similar issue: Are drivers supposed to stop at red lights, slow at yellow lights, and accelerate at green lights? Better issue: What do drivers do at stop lights? Both give the same answer, but one isn't just answering itself with a yes or no, or assuming we already know the answer.

I'm no pro, and probably wrong, but I think the issue here is: Are the sale and leaseback in this case in fact an equitable mortgage? Better: How does a court determine whether a purported land sale and subsequent leaseback are in fact an equitable mortgage? I could even see: "Does a court rely on any factors to determine the existence of an equitable mortgage?" or even something as basic as "Did the trial court err?" which is a really easy, technically correct go-to, considering every single case in our books is on appeal.

No one would ask: "To figure something out, does a trial court apply an eight-factor test which considers multiple specific factors?"

How would they know to ask that? Unless they already knew that "yes, to determine whether a purported land sale...the court applies an eight-factor framework considering....etc." Theoretically they wouldn't, because they are a law student reading the opinion/excerpt, and are being asked what they think the issue of the case is - not "How can you say the rule/governing law in the form of a question?"

Someone who would ask that question, arbitrarily come up with the number 8 and the details, and be right about it, could make a lot of money with that kind of clairvoyance.

Thanks for letting me ramble. Up since 5 am yesterday with a newborn, and finals start Tomorrow. You guys are the best and I really do appreciate you and your product.