jjlaw wrote:rdcws000 wrote:In my experience, the professor is rarely going to ask you "what was the rule in this case?". More likely, they will ask you, "What was this case about?" (in a roundabout way). For this reason, and for my own studying later in the semester, I have found it invaluable to have short briefs on every case. My briefs are never more than 1/3 of a page long, and they basically sum up the key principle of the case in my language.
I just started 1L, but I've found that my professors tend to stay on the person they've cold-called on for at least 10 minutes asking about the facts, procedure, and the judge's reasoning. It seems like you'd have to prepare a brief in order to answer all of these questions to satisfaction. I've been highlighting in technicolor and writing out the briefs, but I'd really like to cut out the briefs part. Does anyone have advice on how I can get away with not doing the briefs but still do well when getting called on for 10 minutes about one case?
Do other professors only ask one question (i.e. facts) and move on to another person to ask another one (i.e. procedure)?
from personal experience this week--I read very carefully and try to flesh out my understanding by giving a quick glance at a supplement if I'm unclear (always being mindful of the supplement vs. my professor's wording). Really tease out the rule, preexisting rule, "forks" if there is a dissenting opinion, policy reasons if applicable. Procedure and facts can simply be underlined and read from if called on--I was fine with trying to develop a deep understanding of the reasons behind the rule and its applications. briefing is a crutch--one of many. If you read carefully, and thought carefully about the case, and made some basic notes about yourself, the only reason you'll look bad is stage fright.