Are the one's who get the B+ and the A's the one's who cite comparable cases from class and then distinguish the facts from the case to the hypo at hand, along with all the other analysis?

I didn't get any B+ or A's this 1L semester. I thought I analyzed stuff pretty good, but I didn't really read the cases well, so I never remembered any of them, and never cited to them. Is this important? Professors never give a direct answer about this.

.

I got 2 A-'s and an A+ in my substantive classes and hardly cited any cases. I described the BLL as clearly and concisely as I could and really only used cases when they were so important I couldn't explain the law without mentioning them...using the Luperello theory, the 2 tortfeasors find themselves in a summers v tice situation, etc.

I was a little worried that it would come back to bite me in the ass but it seems like it wasn't an issue.

all my grades so far are above median. I did cite some cases for property (the real obvious ones..... Pierson v. Post etc etc) and a few in Civ Pro (such as the Celotex standard for summary judgment or Twombly). I didn't cite any in contracts although I did refer to the UCC and restatements.

Well I guess its more about my analyzation. Does anyone have a rough guideline that they go by to analyze, who consistently get's B+'s or A's.

Typically I would say something like this..

"In this case there is battery...... Battery is this(define).....Battery is found when.... The reason battery can be found in this case is that (and then I would apply the facts of the case to the definition I just got)....The defendant may argue that battery is not apparent here because of this.....

Then I would go on to the next issue. I felt like I knew exactly what I was talking about on each issue, so I don't know why I got a C+ on one of them.

I agree with this one... I had some who expressed that this was really important... some who said not to do it unless it was as shorthand to them... and some who didn't mention it. I guess my default setting if they don't express a preference is to cite cases... but like others said, the important part is the analysis... i use cases to show what authority I'm getting the statements I make from.

I think that if you have an issue where it's applicable an "In the alternative..." section showing that you know a different way that the issue could be framed is good, shows that you have a broader understanding of the issue/area of law and aren't just mechanically applying a few memorized rules. And of course there are probably some minor issues that you didn't spot. I have a hard time explaining exactly how I approached my analysis, but I would imagine by far the greatest help would be to read over the sample answers and then contact your professors and just say that you were disappointed in your grade and would they mind going over your answer with you and giving you some pointers both on specifically what you did wrong and also tips they have for future exams and your approach to crafting an answer. I would imagine that they would be happy to do so.

I haven't taken torts yet, but I don't recall actually defining anything in my exams. OTOH all my exams are open book, so I'm pretty sure defining stuff would be worth zero points.

Yeah, definitely don't define things. Professors seem to prefer to have things explained in the manner you would explain something to someone knowledgeable about the area of law. It's not about explaining the law. It's about applying the law to the problem before you. You're explaining your analysis and conclusions.

.

Good idea about approaching the professor. Unfortunately, most professors don't have old practice exams with sample answers.

Surprised it's not good to define. I use the definition to apply it to the facts usually, like battery is an unpermitted contact...therefore in this case a battery was committed because even though the boy was joking around, he pushed his friend down.

your problem might be that this isn't a black-and-white issue. you can certainly argue that a joke-push is a permitted contact, even in vosburg they emphasized that the kick was during class and hinted it might be different if it happened during recess, etc. or talk about incentives...if people always had to say "yes, you can push me now" to a contact to be permitted, society couldn't function, blahlbhgahag

No, let's argue torts.

Answer to OP: Check with your professor. This is your target audience.

Some prof's will tell you that they don't want any mention of cases, some will even tell you they dump points in your lap for case citations. Find out for each class and each professor and play by their rules.

As Andy mentions, always check with the professor first. But I do think you'll find it is not necessary with most professors. Both classes I've gotten back so far I didn't cite to any cases and it certainly didn't hurt me.

No, I told you to shut the fuck up.

what did bradytomoss ever do to you?

btw he also asked for general exam help. read the thread, d00der

and my point was not that my take on the pushing issue was the correct way to interpret it; more like it IS an issue that the professor surely did not intend for you to breeze over

Alright, that was wierd. You revoked that post, you turd.

Pull a rabbit out of your hat next.

Ahhhh...thank you! I usually do black and white to start, and then end with something like the defendant would argue that...but I usually don't add in any policy analysis, that's what may be missing!

well that may be one thing missing. but for heaven's sake, talk to your professors and don't rely on me, lolz

Rely on me.

You don't need old exams and practice answers, I would hope that the professors you had last semester would be willing to discuss the exams you just took with you. They should be able to give you some tips on where your analysis went wrong or what kinds of things you were missing.

For the future you can ask professors you have whether they are looking for case citations (I personally cited a good bit, very heavily in Con Law which was my best grade but in that case I think it would be hard to approach a Constitutional Law exam without pointing out the way the standards have evolved in various cases and drawing comparisons between cases you have studied and your own hypo so that you identify what standards you are using, it's kind of the oddball IMO).

But I think whether case citations are an issue or not that professors who have graded exams of yours already and wouldn't mind looking back over your responses would be able to give the best advice with regards to what is missing or needs tweaking in your analysis.

Not a single one of my professor's required cited cases. You needed to know the elements/rules/tests from the cases.

I think you missed his point. I don't think it was that you should argue policy (its unlikely not arguing policy hurt you that much). I think his point was rather that you need to argue each element of a law if it might be possible.

IE: Battery is (1) intentional infliction of (2) harmful or offensive (3) bodily contact. A proper analysis needs to argue each one of the 3 elements. (1) Intent might be present because B threw the rock towards A and most people don't throw rocks towarsd others unless they intend to hit them but it might not exist b/c B normally wears glasses, but wasn't at the time he threw the rock . He might not have seen A and couldn't have intended to throw the rock at A b/c he didn't know he was there. A can counter this by saying that B had constructive intent ( feasor knew with substantial certainty that a battery would occur) b/c a person that throws a rock most likely knows with substantial certainty that a person might be hurt. B will counter that he thought it was an empty field w/ no one in it and thus couldn't had had substantial certainty.

Then you will need to do the same thing for 2 and 3. You should mostly only use policy to help argue for each side (IE: courts might find for A b/c they don't like to encouraging the throwing of rocks but some courts do like to encourage it b/c it helps to strengthen arms for baseball), but you may also offer the policy behind the rule (do this quickly). Ultimately the key is to argue everything possible and NEVER be conclusive (always show the reason why). Note though that not every element is arguable. IE: the hypo says that B punched A then contact isn't really arguable. You still need to say though that "there was contact b/c B punched A" and not just "there was contact."

As for case citing. I don't think I citing many cases. I'm sure I did but it was seldom and sporadic and probably didn't effect my grade that much.

All this is with the warning that each prof is different. If your prof likes policy and wants cases cited then you better do it (or do it more often).

yeah i meant a more general "argue both sides/each element" kinda thing. honestly, i only brought up policy for elements the prof said were conclusory (i.e. proximate cause...pick a side and kinda work backwards) and for things i blanked on the actual law for (lolz). or i guess if policy considerations are overwhelming on one side (i.e. one side leads to impossible results)