1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

[BriaTharen]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

Do you have any idea if the library has this on reserve? I'm pretty strong in contracts, but I want to get some more information on Battle of the Forms.

Also, LAWL.

His section on Battle of the Forms is severely lacking. I would check out the E&E instead.

[vanwinkle]

chirelstein's little book is fantastic. abraham's little torts book is also phenomenal. i've been told that all of those little books in the concepts and insights series are good, actually.

I agree. I'm taking Employment Discrimination this semester and got the Concepts & Insights book by Rutherglen (a UVA prof, but that's just coincidental). It's incredibly helpful.

The "problem" with these books are that they give you the concepts; that is, they're about the theory behind the law. If that's what you're struggling with, how all the laws fit together and how to apply it all, then they're great books. If you're struggling to know what the law is, itself, these things barely take time to explain that at all, and you need something more like a commercial outline that'll just bluntly tell you Case A stands for Rule X but also think about Case B for Variation Y.

[Stanford4Me]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

Do you have any idea if the library has this on reserve? I'm pretty strong in contracts, but I want to get some more information on Battle of the Forms.

Also, LAWL.

His section on Battle of the Forms is severely lacking. I would check out the E&E instead.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out.

[gwuorbust]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

Do you have any idea if the library has this on reserve? I'm pretty strong in contracts, but I want to get some more information on Battle of the Forms.

Also, LAWL.

His section on Battle of the Forms is severely lacking. I would check out the E&E instead.

E7E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chirelstein

[beach_terror]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

Do you have any idea if the library has this on reserve? I'm pretty strong in contracts, but I want to get some more information on Battle of the Forms.

Also, LAWL.

His section on Battle of the Forms is severely lacking. I would check out the E&E instead.

E7E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chirelstein

What is this E7E and where can I find it?

[beach_terror]

Also - what do you guys do when you encounter a line of analysis that blatantly stops at a certain step very early in the analysis? Like for example, there was a question about supplemental jurisdiction on a civ pro past exam and I felt obligated to still analyze whether or not there was 1331/1332 jurisdiction - but it almost felt useless. But in theory, aren't you supposed to decide if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction before jumping into supplemental jurisdiction?

[romothesavior]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

chirelstein's little book is fantastic. abraham's little torts book is also phenomenal. i've been told that all of those little books in the concepts and insights series are good, actually.

I have been trying all week to get my hands on Chirelestein. None of the St. Louis Borders have it, the WUSTL bookstore has literally every supplement known to man (including many of the Cases and Concepts Series) EXCEPT Chirelstein, and none of my 2L or 3L homies has it. I am going to give Barnes and Noble a try (and maybe even SLU's bookstore, even though they suck), but it is looking more and more like it is physically impossible to get Chirelstein in St. Louis.

[dailygrind]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

chirelstein's little book is fantastic. abraham's little torts book is also phenomenal. i've been told that all of those little books in the concepts and insights series are good, actually.

I have been trying all week to get my hands on Chirelestein. None of the St. Louis Borders have it, the WUSTL bookstore has literally every supplement known to man (including many of the Cases and Concepts Series) EXCEPT Chirelstein, and none of my 2L or 3L homies has it. I am going to give Barnes and Noble a try (and maybe even SLU's bookstore, even though they suck), but it is looking more and more like it is physically impossible to get Chirelstein in St. Louis.

http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Case-Ana ... 052&sr=1-1

i think it's available with 1 day shipping. obviously you can get it cheaper if you shop around a bit and compromise on shipping speed.

[romothesavior]

Anybody else read Chirelstein for contracts? It's incredibly helpful. BUT. In his section about promises to make gifts, his illustration involves a family member promising to pay off a niece's law school loans, "Up to a limit of $10,000."

chirelstein's little book is fantastic. abraham's little torts book is also phenomenal. i've been told that all of those little books in the concepts and insights series are good, actually.

I have been trying all week to get my hands on Chirelestein. None of the St. Louis Borders have it, the WUSTL bookstore has literally every supplement known to man (including many of the Cases and Concepts Series) EXCEPT Chirelstein, and none of my 2L or 3L homies has it. I am going to give Barnes and Noble a try (and maybe even SLU's bookstore, even though they suck), but it is looking more and more like it is physically impossible to get Chirelstein in St. Louis.

http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Case-Ana ... 052&sr=1-1

i think it's available with 1 day shipping. obviously you can get it cheaper if you shop around a bit and compromise on shipping speed.

My exam is Monday though. I'm not willing to risk not getting it til Monday.

Oh well, its not a huge deal. My roommate has the EE, I have a Gilbert's outline, I have the Crunchtime, and my prof gives us his notes. I just wanted Chirelstein to synthesize.

[vanwinkle]

Also - what do you guys do when you encounter a line of analysis that blatantly stops at a certain step very early in the analysis? Like for example, there was a question about supplemental jurisdiction on a civ pro past exam and I felt obligated to still analyze whether or not there was 1331/1332 jurisdiction - but it almost felt useless. But in theory, aren't you supposed to decide if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction before jumping into supplemental jurisdiction?

You need original jurisdiction before you can have supplemental jurisdiction, and I would've pointed that out. But if the question was designed to focus on the supplemental jurisdiction, then pointing out the original jurisdiction should have only taken a minute or two and just a sentence or paragraph.

If you feel like it's necessary, spend a minute pounding out a basic answer, and keep going. Worst case you wasted 2-3 minutes and can stop worrying about it, best case it's as relevant as you thought and you at least touched on the issue.

[BriaTharen]

Also - what do you guys do when you encounter a line of analysis that blatantly stops at a certain step very early in the analysis? Like for example, there was a question about supplemental jurisdiction on a civ pro past exam and I felt obligated to still analyze whether or not there was 1331/1332 jurisdiction - but it almost felt useless. But in theory, aren't you supposed to decide if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction before jumping into supplemental jurisdiction?

You probably scored a couple of points for bringing that up, but the meat of the question was supplemental jurisdiction.

But I know what you mean. My civ pro exam had a hypo that set up an in rem/quasi-in rem jurisdiction case, and then he asked something completely different. I still feel weird about not having said anything about in rem even though the question was not asking for that at all.

[beach_terror]

Also - what do you guys do when you encounter a line of analysis that blatantly stops at a certain step very early in the analysis? Like for example, there was a question about supplemental jurisdiction on a civ pro past exam and I felt obligated to still analyze whether or not there was 1331/1332 jurisdiction - but it almost felt useless. But in theory, aren't you supposed to decide if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction before jumping into supplemental jurisdiction?

You need original jurisdiction before you can have supplemental jurisdiction, and I would've pointed that out. But if the question was designed to focus on the supplemental jurisdiction, then pointing out the original jurisdiction should have only taken a minute or two and just a sentence or paragraph.

If you feel like it's necessary, spend a minute pounding out a basic answer, and keep going. Worst case you wasted 2-3 minutes and can stop worrying about it, best case it's as relevant as you thought and you at least touched on the issue.

The question was bizarre. It essentially asked if there was going to be jurisdiction over a third party claim by P1 against a new defendant. It said to assume there was subject matter jurisdiction over the claim between P1-D1, but it didn't identify what type it was supposed to be. It was almost impossible to infer which type because it was a state negligence claim for the P1-D1 and there was definitely no diversity.

"Assuming [partner's] theory is correct, and ?? and P contracted for P to carry one ton of [food], in negligent disregard to industry custom, [partner] would like to file a third party complaint against ?? seeking indemnity for some portion of any damages D1 may be ordered to pay to P. Assuming that [partner] was able to successfully remove the case to federal court (and, accordingly, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear P claims against D1), may the court also entertain D1's claim against ??"

Maybe I'm missing something, I understand that it's driving at 1367 - but without knowing the basis for SMJ for the P-D1 claim, I was like derrrp?

[kalvano]

Also, Romo - the Chirelstein book is really good, but very basic. If you have even a basic understanding of contract law, you probably don't need it.

[PirateCap'n]

Also, Romo - the Chirelstein book is really good, but very basic. If you have even a basic understanding of contract law, you probably don't need it.

I agree. It's way too basic. It's almost like it was written for a layman (which I guess it could have been), and that's not much help for law school exams or understanding it in depth for class.

[dailygrind]

Also, Romo - the Chirelstein book is really good, but very basic. If you have even a basic understanding of contract law, you probably don't need it.

yeah, i used it as a way to break ground before i read cases, so i'd know what i needed to pull out of them. as a review after i've gone through cases i doubt it'd be as helpful.

[nygrrrl]

Also, Romo - the Chirelstein book is really good, but very basic. If you have even a basic understanding of contract law, you probably don't need it.

yeah, i used it as a way to break ground before i read cases, so i'd know what i needed to pull out of them. as a review after i've gone through cases i doubt it'd be as helpful.

DG, you read the little torts book? Worth reading over January break before torts? Or better to do the E&E?

[kalvano]

Torts E&E is awesome.

[beach_terror]

Torts E&E is awesome.

I feel like Glannon is more deserving of my tuition money than my torts teacher.

[vanwinkle]

The question was bizarre. It essentially asked if there was going to be jurisdiction over a third party claim by P1 against a new defendant. It said to assume there was subject matter jurisdiction over the claim between P1-D1, but it didn't identify what type it was supposed to be. It was almost impossible to infer which type because it was a state negligence claim for the P1-D1 and there was definitely no diversity.

Yeah, I would've flipped out here too.

I guess I would've approached it as "if original jurisdiction is federal question-based, then this is how supplemental jurisdiction would've worked", and then "if original jurisdiction is diversity-based, here's how supplemental jurisdiction would be different/wouldn't be different".

That's a little bizarre to me though.

[clintonius]

I'm finding the Chirelstein helpful mostly because my prof was highly disorganized, and the little blue book puts all the concepts in an easy-to-understand framework.

Also helpful was the civ pro book in the same series (though my professor was the author, so I suppose it may be more helpful for me than for others).

[nygrrrl]

Torts E&E is awesome.

Consensus is... E&E. January reading, secure.

[dailygrind]

Also, Romo - the Chirelstein book is really good, but very basic. If you have even a basic understanding of contract law, you probably don't need it.

yeah, i used it as a way to break ground before i read cases, so i'd know what i needed to pull out of them. as a review after i've gone through cases i doubt it'd be as helpful.

DG, you read the little torts book? Worth reading over January break before torts? Or better to do the E&E?

i've never looked at the E&E, but the little torts book is amazing. it's may even have reached the status of legendary, and the prof who wrote it is pretty legendary as well. the biggest upside is that it's crazy short, too, and is amazing for reading before you get to cases. i'll abstain from voting based upon my lack of E&E knowledge, though.

[kalvano]

You can get by with the older edition, but the newer one has much better intentional torts coverage.

[nygrrrl]

Oh and look at that - still a copy in the library. Will grab that this afternoon. thanks, all!

[vanwinkle]

Also helpful was the civ pro book in the same series (though my professor was the author, so I suppose it may be more helpful for me than for others).

Ha, yeah, having a book by your prof is always immensely helpful. I had the same thing in Crim Law, my prof wrote a hornbook. In fact, when I visited him during office hours to discuss my struggling with a concept, his response was "buy my book and read it, and if you're still confused, come back and we'll talk".

For most people, I think the Glannon E&E or the Glannon Guide are TCR for Civ Pro.