OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[LetsGoLAW]

LetsGo,

First, and according to my prof, since we are dealing with two (potentially) negligent defendants we must use the substantial factor analysis.
"Actual causation is proved using the substantial factor analysis when there are two (or more) negligent defendants. Here, A's breach of duty (to not put the box in the street) was a substantial factor in causing C's harm"

Second, the facts say that B pushed over C...this is hugely different than C "tripping" over the box....and the hypo says "middle of the street"
I like that you took advantage of the ambiguity of that phrase. Does middle of the street equal dead center or closer to a crosswalk. This could definitely play a huge role in establishing prox cause. I think the best thing is your analysis because ultimately its the analysis that gets points.

Also:
If cardozo is satisfied then andrews will always be satisfied. However if cardozo is not satisfied b/c plaintiff is not foreseeable then you can argue the andrews approach. Does that make sense? If you start by saying plaintiff (C) is foreseeable, then there is no need to tack on andrews.

Andrews comes into play if plaintiff not foreseeable and/or the harm was not in the foreseeable risks of the negligent conduct. So, if there is not a duty to the plaintiff BUT there is a duty to someone then cardozo fails but andrews would allow recovery ("unsocial" conduct bit) to those injured directly from the negligent act as long as it is not too far in time and space (attenuated).

All in all, i liked it. Many points will be given in your analysis!
Crazy because even though i think it is not likely prox cause under cardozo and potentially prox cause under andrews, both approaches seem to work.

Thanks. All our professors have different ideas what is correct. For example, I will keep most of my proximate cause arguments to 1) type of harm and 2) foreseeable plaintiff (use Cardozo and Andrews). He has separate manner and extents. On every test since the dawn of time, EVERY defendant was negligent, so I have been attempting to argue both ways but conclude PC.

[Jsa725]

.

[llachans]

Hey guys,

The class I struggle with the most is Civ Pro. I've been doing the Glannon E&Es. Any other resources I should look into that have been helpful?

[JRustle]

Hey guys,

The class I struggle with the most is Civ Pro. I've been doing the Glannon E&Es. Any other resources I should look into that have been helpful?

Acing Civ Pro is in my opinion a must have. Also it's really short so you can get through it in like 2 days.

[Jsa725]

.

[dietcoke0]

Anyone think there can be too many words? I have been chunking tests at roughly 1000 words per 20 minutes, and been able to sustain that pretty easily. Did about 4,500 in two hours including reading and outlining (not doing full tests because I like seeing new fact patterns instead of just fleshing out minor issues on the same exam). On long dense tort exams, I can usually spend 20 minutes reading, outlining, and then spend 2 hours 40 minutes straight typing (and Torts I have no slowing down, so not going to run out of things to say) Also it's not needing much polishing, other than just a few mistyped words. I use short sentences, not blabbling on (hard to believe, but really). I'm most worried about Civ Pro. I actually do have a ton to say on each subject (got it down cold) and it's closed everything, so I'm just going off my memory, which is easy for me to regurgitate on paper.

I'm guessing on exam day, with adrenaline and competitive juices flowing, I could break 7k words in 3 hours if I don't slow down. Think this would look bad to have a small treaties on Civ Pro, or would it be nice to show my knowledge?

[dietcoke0]

Reason I ask too is because when I look at model responses, they are like 2,000-3,000 words, but I always see more depth and analysis that could have been done to several arguments. I don't know if they just missed it, or if just not enough time and moved on, or what.

[llachans]

Thanks for the recommendations!

[Jsa725]

.

[dietcoke0]

That's the thing, he's never talked about the exam, other than good luck. I'm not asking for professor specific, got the other two down, I'm asking in general, would it just be too much?

[Jsa725]

.

[dietcoke0]

I know how to take exams. And I know my professor. His response would be answer the question thoroughly, but concisely, and good luck. He doesn't have office hours before the exam.

I'm not worried about the exam. I told you, I got it down cold. Been working for the exam the entire semester. I also don't get nervous for trivial things like exams. In fact I rather enjoy them, since I am competitive.

I just was curious if a long, in-depth, but thoughtful written exam was too much if it starts exceeding 6,000 words when it seems like other model responses (not to this professor) are so short in comparison.

[Jsa725]

.

[dietcoke0]

Jeeze, tell me more. I'm just saying a test is nothing to be nervous about. Not because of it's implications, but it's a test. I'm going to do how I do. As long as I put myself in the best position to do well, then there is no reason to be nervous. Nervousness will just lead to other problems. Why burden myself with something I can't control (others) and just focus on what I can control (my prep and mental preparedness)

[Jsa725]

.

[LetsGoLAW]

I'MMA GET MINE. I'MMA GET MINE. I'MMA GET MINE.

[SportsFan]

Yeah, for me, I think I've been pretty successful in exam prep (well, we'll judge that after I get my grades back haha...) so far because I haven't stressed out much. Instead of focusing 24/7 on the law, I've been spending 2-3 hours a day during the week and 4-5 hours a day on weekends on my work. Keeps me efficient, rather than spending 7+ hours a day "studying" when half that time (or more!) is spent on facebook or forums or whatever.

Also, I have a question about timing my torts exam, and what you guys suggest. For torts, we typically get 3 questions which my professor suggests 1 hour, 1 hour, and 45 minutes for. Then we get an additional 45 minutes (making it a 3.5 hour exam) that my professor suggests we use to look over our exams and fix typos and whatnot (spelling and grammar are VERY important to my professor... ). My question is should I allocate this 45 minutes to the 3 questions (so 1 hour 15 minutes for the first 2 questions and an hour for the 3rd), or should I do what my professor suggests and save it for the end to review? Any thoughts? Ultimately I know its a personal thing, and I'm leaning towards saving it for the end because giving each question a 'fresh' read through may help me spot some things I missed, but any input is appreciated...

[dietcoke0]

Me personally, I'd adhere to the time limits strictly on the first pass (I think you said hour, hour, 45). I would do just that, hitting up main issues, then fleshing out all minor, lesser issues until that time has elapsed.

Then what I would do, is spend the extra 15 on each one reviewing grammar/syntax/ordering, just ensuring that everything is gravy. But while doing that, would flesh out a few more arguments where I see a hole, or something new. Your brain works while you are looking at other things, and might make key connections later on.

That's just me. You will have to judge based on how the test is. If you can string together great arguments, but need a little more time to do it, then might just spend the extra 15 straight answering.

[Jsa725]

.

[SportsFan]

Me personally, I'd adhere to the time limits strictly on the first pass (I think you said hour, hour, 45). I would do just that, hitting up main issues, then fleshing out all minor, lesser issues until that time has elapsed.

Then what I would do, is spend the extra 15 on each one reviewing grammar/syntax/ordering, just ensuring that everything is gravy. But while doing that, would flesh out a few more arguments where I see a hole, or something new. Your brain works while you are looking at other things, and might make key connections later on.

That's just me. You will have to judge based on how the test is. If you can string together great arguments, but need a little more time to do it, then might just spend the extra 15 straight answering.

this.

Thanks guys. Sounds good.

Another question... My first exam (contracts) is Monday, and I only have 1 more practice exam from my professor (I have plenty for my other classes so this hasn't been an issue I've even to think about yet!). I can get old exams from other professors at my school, but is it even worth it to do them, or is there some other way I should spend my time? My contracts professor is kinda weird (doesn't really care about the UCC/restatement differences for the purpose of the exam, never taught statute of frauds, etc.) and the exam is basically the typical "write as much as you can in 3 hours" issue spotter, and we don't have to cite specific restatement/UCC provisions or anything, so I'm not really gonna memorize any of them except a few key ones.

Really, I'm just unclear on what to do from here, since I'm planning on filling the days before my other exams with all the practice exams I can do, and I can't do that here...

[Raiden]

Got my first exam today, let's do this boys and girls.

Started my day with an Insanity work out, and then hit the hot tub, living the good life.

[Jsa725]

.

[Raiden]

Criminaaaal. I'll try to come out not being too red handed, but I'll just claim self defense.

Best of luck to everyone else!

[minnbills]

So earlier this semester I had a kind of "eureka" moment in torts where things started falling into place- and I felt like I "got it."

I think I had similar moments last night and today in conlaw and civpro.

For example, in conlaw today, I felt like I wasn't just understanding what was being argued, but that I was able to anticipate the arguments surrounding the issues and see where policy would influence each argument.

Doesn't really mean anything, but I am starting to feel confident about my own knowledge of the subject matter. So I'll take it!

[noleknight16]

Richard Freer made Civil Procedure make more sense in just 2 hours than my professor did all semester.