Issue Spotting

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar

Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Issue Spotting

Postby goosey » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:25 pm

so on an issue spotter, should you just talk about ANYTHING that you see?

I'm having some trouble hitting all the issues in my civ pro practice. He basically outlines what the issues are and then there are a few others up for grabs that he doesn't mention. As I am reading, I find certain things make issues pop to mind, but then they dont seem *that* relevant and so I don't discuss them...for example, a plaintiff filed suit, then voluntarily dismissed under rule 41. The same plaintiff later re-filed the suit, this time adding more claims. The defendant asserted an affirmative defense stating that he couldnt bring up issues that he did not the first time around. When I read that, I though "claim preclusion...but that doesnt fit because its like backwards claim preclusion--hes arguing he can ONLY bring up what he brought up last time, not that he cant bring up what he brought up last time. plus it was never litigated so there was no final judgment on the merits." After that, I never mentioned it because it seems unimportant.

Further, a judge denied a directed verdict and said "i want to hear what the jury has to say"--when I read that, I thought about how sometimes they deny directed verdicts b/c if they grant it and it gets reversed on appeal, its inefficient and the trial has to start from scratch. this way, if he denies it, there is at least a jury verdict to fall back on. This seemed like a "side note" kind of thing and not something to mention on the exam.

both preclusion and directed verdicts were mentioned as "key issues" on the professors answer key. all he provides is key issues so I dont know how these things were discussed, just that they are mentioned as key issues. Directed verdicts may have been discussed in the context of them being conditioned precedents to jnov's since jnov was an issue, but I am wondering if I should have mentioned directed verdicts aside from that, in the context I mentioned above.

My professor is a policy kind of guy...his A answer has rule-policy-analysis. but I just dont know when to mention things and when not to

any advice?


Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:02 pm

Re: Issue Spotting

Postby Mandamus » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:25 pm

Read the "call of the question" first, otherwise you'll be distracted by the half a dozen or so "issues" that they don't want to hear about and are there just to distract you.

Yeah some Profs ask you to list ALL issues, but most don't. Just read the bottom part first and then read the rest with notes on the side so that when you IRAC(dear god dont forgot to irac!!!!) the final result on your turn in sheet you will have a good answer for maximum points.

Are you in your first term? That ones is the roughest, you'll be ok if you can survive the first round.

Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thecatandthehat and 39 guests