How important is the first few days

[the11111111]

So Im going through the first few days and I get the feeling that I won't get tested on any of this material... an example os the Pennoyer case on personal jurisdiction...

So my question is should I really be stressing these cases? Or should my focus be strictly on the limited knowledge I need to retain from the case and move on. (I think I just answered my own question but comments are helpful) Im having the hardest time not doing the norm, following my gut, and preparing for the final as so many on here have helped me figure out is the best way to an A. Oh and last question, has anyone on here prepared for the final as well briefed and went through each case diligently or is that nearly impossible.

Thanks in advance for the help guys... I know some of this stuff might seem elementary...

[Glock]

Depends on professors. Some will ask specific questions based on cases discussed in class. Most will have issue spotting exams that don't involve any of the early stuff. The answer is- it depends on your professor. Look up past exams and know what to expect.

The main value of reading early cases is not looking like an idiot when you get called on.

[mths]

going through 1L - $70,000
going through oci - countless hours of anxiety
watching incoming 1Ls going through it and wondering if they'll be tested on Pennoyer (you will) - priceless

[nealric]

an example os the Pennoyer case on personal jurisdiction...

Yeah, Pennoyer hasn't been law for eons. But I suppose it could come up on a policy question. Don't stress too much. Really, the Pennoyer case ins't complicated, it's just hard to read the verbose 19th century legal writing. Read the civpro E&E and all will become clear.

watching incoming 1Ls going through it and wondering if they'll be tested on Pennoyer (you will) - priceless

Lulz.

[mths]

an example os the Pennoyer case on personal jurisdiction...

Yeah, Pennoyer hasn't been law for eons. But I suppose it could come up on a policy question. Don't stress too much. Really, the Pennoyer case ins't complicated, it's just hard to read the verbose 19th century legal writing. Read the civpro E&E and all will become clear.

watching incoming 1Ls going through it and wondering if they'll be tested on Pennoyer (you will) - priceless

Lulz.

tbf my first case was Sibbach...

...love 1L

[the11111111]

Preciate it guys... I was reading it and thinking to myself, why does this ish even matter anymore... guess I got my answer...

[mths]

Preciate it guys... I was reading it and thinking to myself, why does this ish even matter anymore... guess I got my answer...

it matters but not to the extent that most people think

get the main point of the case but don't write it off

pennoyer is the jumpoff point for PJx

[Sandro]

Very important to the person who asked about a legal statue in the first 5 minutes that wasnt even in the casebook for Pennoyer v Nef nor did the professor talk about it other to address their question politely.

[nealric]

Very important to the person who asked about a legal statue

A legal statue?

--ImageRemoved--

[the11111111]

Thanks, I understood it but after reading it for the umpteenth time lol I decided I understood it enough... The main thing for me is that all my courses seem to have either cases that don't have a current relevance or these quick philosophies about how the law came about, I read it but I feel that it isn't one of those things that are uber important (or at least I hope not). I just wanted to make sure I am studying the right way...

[mths]

Very important to the person who asked about a legal statue in the first 5 minutes that wasnt even in the casebook for Pennoyer v Nef nor did the professor talk about it other to address their question politely.

*Neff

[Heartford]

FWIW, if you didn't read/understand Pennoyer, you would have bombed my Civ Pro final... just because it's not good law doesn't necessarily mean it won't help you on the exam.

Just goes to show you that different professors emphasize different things, I guess.

[Sandro]

Very important to the person who asked about a legal statue

A legal statue?

--ImageRemoved--

--ImageRemoved--

You mad, bro ?

[NotMyRealName09]

The law is not just a static set of principles to be memorized and recited. It is an evolving, organic thing. The law does not arise out of thin air. It is a product of the people and the times.

You can't understand the present state of the law until you understand how things used to be. The law is based on precednet - how things were done in the past. A case that has been overturned speaks volumes about what the law now is. Now that you understand that overturned case, you know what the answer cannot be. That is very helpful to know.

The skill you are being taught is how to make the best out of what you've got. You will rarely have a client whose problem can be answered by quick reference to a memorized principle of law. What you will be confronted with is a twist on a legal issue - possibly one that has never been seen before - and you cannot talk sensibly about how to solve that new problem unless you have a handle on the evolution of the law, unless you know at least what the law is not.

Sometimes, knowing exactly what the law isn't can lead you to what the law actually is, or should be. To put it another way, the current state of the law may be more understandable when you see the problems with the way things used to be handled.

Pennoyer may not be directly applicable today, but all of today's personal jurisdiction jurisprudence evolved from those principles. You gain a deeper understanding of something by knowing its roots and history. That, in turn, will make you a better lawyer, because by seeing how the law has evolved, you will be able to PREDICT where the law is going. See, just as Pennoyer was displaced by subsequent legal doctrines, so too will today's legal doctrines evolve or be supplanted. And if you can accurately predict where the law is going, you can shape the law or win cases using novel arguments, helping your clients and making some cash along the way. Those novel arguments may help you find practice niche.

You have to be comfortable with standing in front of a judge with a piece of precedent in your hand - precedent that harms your client - and make an argument why that precedent was wrongly decided, and why the law should be different - why the court should ignore that precednet and rule in your favor. You cannot do that unless you see how it has been done in the past.

[mths]

The law is not just a static set of principles to be memorized and recited. It is an evolving, organic thing. The law does not arise out of thin air. It is a product of the people and the times.

You can't understand the present state of the law until you understand how things used to be. The law is based on precednet - how things were done in the past. A case that has been overturned speaks volumes about what the law now is. Now that you understand that overturned case, you know what the answer cannot be. That is very helpful to know.

The skill you are being taught is how to make the best out of what you've got. You will rarely have a client whose problem can be answered by quick reference to a memorized principle of law. What you will be confronted with is a twist on a legal issue - possibly one that has never been seen before - and you cannot talk sensibly about how to solve that new problem unless you have a handle on the evolution of the law, unless you know at least what the law is not.

Sometimes, knowing exactly what the law isn't can lead you to what the law actually is, or should be. To put it another way, the current state of the law may be more understandable when you see the problems with the way things used to be handled.

Pennoyer may not be directly applicable today, but all of today's personal jurisdiction jurisprudence evolved from those principles. You gain a deeper understanding of something by knowing its roots and history. That, in turn, will make you a better lawyer, because by seeing how the law has evolved, you will be able to PREDICT where the law is going. See, just as Pennoyer was displaced by subsequent legal doctrines, so too will today's legal doctrines evolve or be supplanted. And if you can accurately predict where the law is going, you can shape the law or win cases using novel arguments, helping your clients and making some cash along the way. Those novel arguments may help you find practice niche.

You have to be comfortable with standing in front of a judge with a piece of precedent in your hand - precedent that harms your client - and make an argument why that precedent was wrongly decided, and why the law should be different - why the court should ignore that precednet and rule in your favor. You cannot do that unless you see how it has been done in the past.

ooooh you're annoying, aren't you?

[NotMyRealName09]

The law is not just a static set of principles to be memorized and recited. It is an evolving, organic thing. The law does not arise out of thin air. It is a product of the people and the times.

You can't understand the present state of the law until you understand how things used to be. The law is based on precednet - how things were done in the past. A case that has been overturned speaks volumes about what the law now is. Now that you understand that overturned case, you know what the answer cannot be. That is very helpful to know.

The skill you are being taught is how to make the best out of what you've got. You will rarely have a client whose problem can be answered by quick reference to a memorized principle of law. What you will be confronted with is a twist on a legal issue - possibly one that has never been seen before - and you cannot talk sensibly about how to solve that new problem unless you have a handle on the evolution of the law, unless you know at least what the law is not.

Sometimes, knowing exactly what the law isn't can lead you to what the law actually is, or should be. To put it another way, the current state of the law may be more understandable when you see the problems with the way things used to be handled.

Pennoyer may not be directly applicable today, but all of today's personal jurisdiction jurisprudence evolved from those principles. You gain a deeper understanding of something by knowing its roots and history. That, in turn, will make you a better lawyer, because by seeing how the law has evolved, you will be able to PREDICT where the law is going. See, just as Pennoyer was displaced by subsequent legal doctrines, so too will today's legal doctrines evolve or be supplanted. And if you can accurately predict where the law is going, you can shape the law or win cases using novel arguments, helping your clients and making some cash along the way. Those novel arguments may help you find practice niche.

You have to be comfortable with standing in front of a judge with a piece of precedent in your hand - precedent that harms your client - and make an argument why that precedent was wrongly decided, and why the law should be different - why the court should ignore that precednet and rule in your favor. You cannot do that unless you see how it has been done in the past.

ooooh you're annoying, aren't you?

Perhaps, but I'm also strikingly handsome, so I get away with it.

The law is fun, and unless you have fun with it, it is a chore, and you will not excel. The law is a story, a narrative, and you can't tell a good story by only repeating the ending. And damnit I just like writing. Lawyers aren't technicians, they are professional writers!

[Heartford]

And damnit I just like writing.

If you keep it up, you might be good at it one day.

[bjsesq]

The law is not just a static set of principles to be memorized and recited. It is an evolving, organic thing. The law does not arise out of thin air. It is a product of the people and the times.

You can't understand the present state of the law until you understand how things used to be. The law is based on precednet - how things were done in the past. A case that has been overturned speaks volumes about what the law now is. Now that you understand that overturned case, you know what the answer cannot be. That is very helpful to know.

The skill you are being taught is how to make the best out of what you've got. You will rarely have a client whose problem can be answered by quick reference to a memorized principle of law. What you will be confronted with is a twist on a legal issue - possibly one that has never been seen before - and you cannot talk sensibly about how to solve that new problem unless you have a handle on the evolution of the law, unless you know at least what the law is not.

Sometimes, knowing exactly what the law isn't can lead you to what the law actually is, or should be. To put it another way, the current state of the law may be more understandable when you see the problems with the way things used to be handled.

Pennoyer may not be directly applicable today, but all of today's personal jurisdiction jurisprudence evolved from those principles. You gain a deeper understanding of something by knowing its roots and history. That, in turn, will make you a better lawyer, because by seeing how the law has evolved, you will be able to PREDICT where the law is going. See, just as Pennoyer was displaced by subsequent legal doctrines, so too will today's legal doctrines evolve or be supplanted. And if you can accurately predict where the law is going, you can shape the law or win cases using novel arguments, helping your clients and making some cash along the way. Those novel arguments may help you find practice niche.

You have to be comfortable with standing in front of a judge with a piece of precedent in your hand - precedent that harms your client - and make an argument why that precedent was wrongly decided, and why the law should be different - why the court should ignore that precednet and rule in your favor. You cannot do that unless you see how it has been done in the past.

Oh, FUCK OFF.

[keg411]

I didn't understand CivPro until I watched the Freer BarBri video during exam period. Ah, the memories of 1L .
Chill, OP. It's a "jump off" case and I'd say 100% of your classmates are just as confused as you are. And if they're not, they're probably wrong.

[TTH]

Start paying attention when you get to long arm statutes and International Shoe, but don't sweat Civ Pro. I played flash games every day and did great in that class.

[rdcws000]

You've gotten a lot of good answers here, and some funny ones. My input is just this: Don't overthink your strategy. You have some time to get the feel for things. Just do what seems to work for you, and don't be afraid to modify it a week or two down the road if you have to.

You won't fall behind if you don't have everything figured out right now.

My first semester I was completely lost all semester long in Contracts. I didn't even know where to start on the big picture. Throughout the semester, (and sometimes right at the end) if you've been paying attention and working at it, it has a strange way of all coming together. Contracts ended up being my best grade.

[random5483]

Depends on the class. Pennoyer is important, especially if you professor tests on the traditional basis of personal jurisdiction. Pennoyer is a hard case. One of the hardest to understand your first semester because of the archaic language and the in rem issues, issues you won't get to till later in the first semester. Pay attention to all the cases and rules. As the semester progresses you will get better at figuring out what is important. Till then, don't ignore any cases, especially in Civ Pro (jurisdiction portion), where all the rules stem from cases.

[TTH]

Depends on the class. Pennoyer is important, especially if you professor tests on the traditional basis of personal jurisdiction. Pennoyer is a hard case. One of the hardest to understand your first semester because of the archaic language and the in rem issues, issues you won't get to till later in the first semester. Pay attention to all the cases and rules. As the semester progresses you will get better at figuring out what is important. Till then, don't ignore any cases, especially in Civ Pro (jurisdiction portion), where all the rules stem from cases.

Better yet, watch the Freer video on BarBri's website and roll through PJ with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.

[Cupidity]

I cited Hawkins v. McGee three times on my contracts final. Second highest grade.

In civ-pro we finished all of Rule 8, Iqbal and Twombly, by day 2 of class.

This isn't high school, we don't have "getting to know you" days. Hit the ground running.

[morris248]

Don't worry about your casebook too much. You will get more out of E&E or in Civ Pro the Glannon Guide. The only thing that counts is how you do on the final exam. You need to be doing practice hypos by midterm and not waiting until the week or two prior to exams.