rdcws000 wrote:Question on understanding BLL (and yes I did read through the past couple pages, but don't have time to read the whole thread). If this has been asked and answered, sue me.
I am doing OK at pulling out the rules of law from the cases. My question is, do I need to be able to state the specific restatement #, or just understand the rule in it? I've been including the restatement #s, statute names, etc in my notes. Is this necessary?
This is a good question, and my answer is that it sort of depends on the professor and the class. For civ pro, you need to know the rules and every subsection of the rules and be able to cite to them on the exam. For contracts, my prof put particular emphasis on knowing the Restatement (and the differences b/w the Restatement and the common law), so I studied them enough to cite them on the exam. For torts, again this is perhaps the most prof-specific, but we did need to know how the Restatement differed in substantive ways from the common law and why it differed--BUT this is the class where I cited the Restatement the least on the exam.
So, for now, I think it's a good idea to put them in your notes b/c it's hard to tell which Restatement sections are super important and which you probably won't need to cite at the beginning on the semester. But when you're outlining and have a better sense of what you need to know for the exam, you'll be thankful you were over-inclusive in your notes.