Casebook written by professor? Forum

[PitchO20]

In Con law, I'm using a casebook written by my professor. Should I approach this any differently that I normally do regarding the casebook? Last semester, I read the cases carefully but skimmed the questions after the cases. While I did brief, I only did it for memory purposes (my memory is shit) and to write notes on. Do you guys think I should be paying closer attention to the in-text problems?

[ksimon2007]

In Con law, I'm using a casebook written by my professor. Should I approach this any differently that I normally do regarding the casebook? Last semester, I read the cases carefully but skimmed the questions after the cases. While I did brief, I only did it for memory purposes (my memory is shit) and to write notes on. Do you guys think I should be paying closer attention to the in-text problems?

Yes, if your Professor is Kathleen Sullivan

[BeenDidThat]

In Con law, I'm using a casebook written by my professor. Should I approach this any differently that I normally do regarding the casebook? Last semester, I read the cases carefully but skimmed the questions after the cases. While I did brief, I only did it for memory purposes (my memory is shit) and to write notes on. Do you guys think I should be paying closer attention to the in-text problems?

I had a class where the professor co-authored the casebook, and his notes essentially directed the reader to the "hard cases" that question exactly where a doctrinal line should be drawn. Sure enough, analogous cases showed up on the final.

EDIT: I've also heard from other students that more than one professor does exactly this. If I were you, I would at least give the notes at the end a good read-through. I wouldn't brief them, though. But I don't brief anything.

[Helmholtz]

In Con law, I'm using a casebook written by my professor. Should I approach this any differently that I normally do regarding the casebook? Last semester, I read the cases carefully but skimmed the questions after the cases. While I did brief, I only did it for memory purposes (my memory is shit) and to write notes on. Do you guys think I should be paying closer attention to the in-text problems?

I had a class last semester that was taught by the book's primary author and seems to be, by far, the most used book in that law school topic across law schools. This semester, I have a casebook written by a prof who could probably best be described as a co-author and the book isn't that widely used. In my pretty limited experience so far, it seems like the notes are filled with questions and scenarios which the authors of the book found interesting and helpful in the study of the law. Looking back, I wish I would have concentrated more on the notes section of the casebook, and I'll probably be doing it more this semester.

[missinglink]

So far, in casebooks authored by my professors, I've found the note sections to be invaluable. Like Helmholtz said, they offer insight into what the casebook author (your professor) finds noteworthy or interesting about the law in a particular area.

I primarily outlined the notes in my contracts course last semester, and synthesized that with the lectures. That was all I needed to do well on the final.

This semester, I have two professors who either co-authored the casebook, or authored it in its entirety. So far, their lectures have tracked the notes perfectly. In both cases, however, it's not notes that pose rhetorical question after rhetorical question - I hate those. Rather, they pretty fairly synthesize the points to take away from the case, state the law as is it clearly, and flesh out tensions that might exist in current interpretations of the law.

Consequently, most of my class time is spent staring at my outline of the casebook, and maybe making a few edits here or there.

[traehekat]

I had one class last semester where the casebook was written by the professor, and the only thing I did different was organize my outline closely to how the casebook was organized.