goosey wrote:Also, the cases is good. I dont ever worry about cases or analogizing cases and maybe thats something to look into.
I think this is a good idea. Obviously all profs grade differently, but a lot of profs I've talked to said that they like seeing case analogies and that even one or two of them helps a student's test stand out because so few people do it.
I'll agree with this. The cases are important because, while you might know the BLL cold, the CASES are in the book to highlight how the BLL applies, and to explain narrow exceptions to the BLL. Most critically - they show you what fact pattern to look for that triggers a certain issue.
A professor won't usually test on straight battery - it will be having to decide whether its transferred intent battery or not, for example. You can't issue spot well if you don't have a grasp of facts of the cases, IMO. I'm not saying memorize the case names - even being able to say "the court in that one case with the kid and the orange juice held . . . " or "the court in that one case where the guy got hit by a train while walking on the tracks held . . . ." That will get you points.
Familiarity with the cases can help in other respects if the professor straight up uses the fact pattern (or a modified version) on an exam. I still remember on my first semester 1L torts exam, the professor almost verbatim included a fact pattern from one of those "note" cases in the book - something we went over very briefly, and wasn't included as a main case, only a summary. It was a case about the kid who was having a diabetic psychosis, the cops threw him in the back of the cop car, and ignored his friend's (sister's?) statements that he needed orange juice because he was diabetic. Because I remembered the case, I knew what analysis the professor was looking for. Speaking with peers later on, it seems a lot of people didn't realize that case was directly covered in class.