It is common and not wrong to think about law in terms of litigation, as a formal process of deciding a confl ict that arises somehow and is then brought to the law’s attention. Legal education fosters an imagination of law as not just above the fray, but as a peacemaker-law is about the peaceful resolution of confl ict. This view is commonly held by law students, who learn through reading the opinions of appellate courts. In order to situate the reader, courts usually begin by recounting “the facts” of a case (i.e., telling a short and highly selective story, one that will make the court’s resolution of the case seem sensible) about who these parties are, the nature of their confl ict, how they came before this court, and what they seek from the court. Then the opinion proceeds to discuss reasons for why the court has decided as it has. In the narrative structure of an appellate opinion, confl ict arises in the world, and the parties come to the court to resolve the confl ict. Law is thus portrayed as existing above the hurly-burly of confl ict.