Even if one believes that law is not an autonomous discipline, few would dispute that it is a conservative institution and that its members are trained via a pedagogical method quite different from that of other professions. A central aspect of this training is the case method and — thus — the specialized narrative form that appellate opinions take. This essay examines the case method and suggests ways to crack it open — without discarding it — and thereby achieve one of the goals set forth in the Carnegie Report: namely, to supplement the analytical, rule-based mode of reasoning inherent in the method.