Top Law Schools

So after reading this site for a while I can say a lot of you said you don't brief cases, becasue your not testing spefically on cases and you can just put a little blurb in your outline about the case. However, some kids at my school say the skills you get from briefing cases are imporant, like identifying issues and such, which basically what an exam is. So I was wondering your thoughts on this. So far, I havent been briefing cases, I have been using old outlines and using canned briefs, however after the fact I do beleive I understand why the issues in cases are issues and why the court ruled that way.

Briefing forces me to read closely, and I try to predict the issues and the holding based on the facts of the case when I read (in cases where the holding isn't announced at the very beginning). I hope this is training my mind to do the same on an exam.

In a dense issue spotter exam, briefing won't help you because the issue is obvious when you read the case (i.e. the section header gives it away).

In exams that are just one big in-depth issue, briefing might help you.

If you have very concise briefs, that might help you when you put together an outline.

...

You should be briefing the first few cases you come across to learn how to identify the holding and the rules and what not, and then once you have that down you can stop formally briefing, because in your mind you should be able to extract that information the first time through.

I would recommend briefing for the next week or so of reading and then you can go back to canned outlines and whatever.

It is just helpful to have when you are just getting your bearings in a subject. This is my brief for one of my first cases in CrimPro:

Mapp v. Ohio (SCOTUS 1961)

Factual Overview
- On May 23, 1957, three police officers arrived at appellant's residence after being informed that the appellant was hiding out in the home and wanted in connection with a recent bombing.
- The officers knocked and demanded entrance, but the appellant refused to admit them without a search warrant.
- Three hours later, the officers knocked down the door and would not permit appellant's attorney from seeing her.
- Officer held up a paper, wrongfully claiming that it was a warrant. Appellant was then handcuffed, and incriminating evidence was found, which caused appellant to be convicted.

Proc History
- Conviction at trial level

Rule of Law
- Overturns Wolf v. Colorado
- All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.

Disposition
- Reversed

So when I walk into class on the first day and my professor says "Okay Mr. Jarndyce, what influential case did Mapp deal with?" I don't have to fumble through the pages and try to find it- it is sitting there in front of me. Sure, you could have got the same info from a canned brief, but if you are creating the briefs, you are actually learning the information and how to read cases. And reading cases one of the main things you learn from law school.

Jarndyce wrote:It is just helpful to have when you are just getting your bearings in a subject. This is my brief for one of my first cases in CrimPro:

Mapp v. Ohio (SCOTUS 1961)

Factual Overview
- On May 23, 1957, three police officers arrived at appellant's residence after being informed that the appellant was hiding out in the home and wanted in connection with a recent bombing.
- The officers knocked and demanded entrance, but the appellant refused to admit them without a search warrant.
- Three hours later, the officers knocked down the door and would not permit appellant's attorney from seeing her.
- Officer held up a paper, wrongfully claiming that it was a warrant. Appellant was then handcuffed, and incriminating evidence was found, which caused appellant to be convicted.

Proc History
- Conviction at trial level

Rule of Law
- Overturns Wolf v. Colorado
- All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.

Disposition
- Reversed

So when I walk into class on the first day and my professor says "Okay Mr. Jarndyce, what influential case did Mapp deal with?" I don't have to fumble through the pages and try to find it- it is sitting there in front of me. Sure, you could have got the same info from a canned brief, but if you are creating the briefs, you are actually learning the information and how to read cases. And reading cases one of the main things you learn from law school.

--ImageRemoved--

corporatelaw87 wrote:So after reading this site for a while I can say a lot of you said you don't brief cases, becasue your not testing spefically on cases and you can just put a little blurb in your outline about the case. However, some kids at my school say the skills you get from briefing cases are imporant, like identifying issues and such, which basically what an exam is. So I was wondering your thoughts on this. So far, I havent been briefing cases, I have been using old outlines and using canned briefs, however after the fact I do beleive I understand why the issues in cases are issues and why the court ruled that way.

It just depends on how well your mind picks out the point of the case. If you do it extremely well, briefing is probably useless. If you don't, it maybe a good idea.

You get, you know, nun-chuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills. Girls only want guys who have great skills.