seespotrun wrote: GeePee wrote: gwuorbust wrote:
GeePee wrote:Because most lawyers just look them up. Who cares if the rule says removal is legitimate only if a party removes 15 or 30 or 60 days after the case becomes removable, or whether appeal on double discretion is under rule 52(b) or 54(a) or 60(b), as long as you know such rules exist and that you should be cognizant of them while you practice?
Memorizing which rules tell you what is not necessary to understanding civil procedure.
Its not about memorizing the rules, its about how to interpret said rules. therein lies the key difference.
Right, and for the ones that require interpretation, you have caselaw. Therefore, there's really no need to know anything about FRCP other than they exist and you should check them when you're unsure.
Worst post I've seen in a while. Congrats!
I have a feeling I'm walking into some serious trolling here, but there is certainly a valid means of conveying Civil Procedure without a focus on the FRCP itself. The Rules are guided by and are designed to advance policy elements which have been discussed extensively in caselaw. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are perfect examples.
If you're calling my post "the worst" based upon separate considerations of statutory interpretation, then you're missing the original flow of the conversation that originated the post. I agree that these can be extremely important, but that goes outside the bounds of necessity in teaching civil procedure.
The point still stands: you can teach the concepts without specifically emphasizing the links to FRCP, and it will not result in a lesser understanding of civil procedure. Thanks for interjecting and going out of your way to be a dick, much appreciated.