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

[BlueLotus]

Checking in. Ahead in Chereminsky and the relative E&Es. Have been writing out the E&E problems this semester. Feelsgoodman.

When are you guys going to begin outlining?

Spring break, which is right now. Glad I'm not the only one who's barely started!

[Jsa725]

.

[gaud]

I use other peeps outlines.

Spring Break I'ma start E&E'in like a maniac

[Jsa725]

.

[mephistopheles]

I use other peeps outlines.

This. a thousand times over!

i don't trust them.

[Jsa725]

.

[gaud]

I use other peeps outlines.

This. a thousand times over!

i don't trust them.

Look for people that have booked or gotten an A in the class from upper levels, they are out there... If it doesn't pass a cursory a glance, then I don't use it

Yep. I can usually tell by looking at it if I could use it.

For example, I had two civ pro outlines last semester (both from 2Ls). One of them was total shit and the other was a complete 180. The 180 one was from a student that A+'d the final.

[LetsGoLAW]

Hi guys. To anyone who took Civ Pro and Con Law first semester, a few questions.

1) In Civ Pro, I am reading Glannon and understand the rules. I just have not matched the rule to the rule number (Rule 12(b)(6), etc.). How did your Civ Pro outline look?
2) In Con Law, there are dozens of tests. Was your outline long or short?
3) In Con Law, I am reading Chereminsky. Is it credited to write out the E&E problems?

Edit: Plus, I can't wait to go in maniac mode again. Starting tomorrow, 9 AM - 1 AM! LET'S GO FOOLS.

By the way, those with long commutes, download BarBri videos and listen to them in your car.

[Bronck]

^ Here's, e.g., what I did for Civ Pro for the section "Preparing a Complaint"

• RULE 1, SCOPE = FRCP should be construed in a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action
• RULE 3, COMMENCING AN ACTION = by filing a complaint w/ the court
• RULE 7, PLEADINGS ALLOWED = (1) complaint, (2) answer to complaint, (3) answer to counterclaim, (4) answer to crossclaim, (5) 3d party complaint, (6) answer to 3d party complaint, (7) reply to an answer
• RULE 8, GENERAL RULES OF PLEADINGS = P must present a "short and plain statement" of the claim for relief
• RULE 9(b), PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS = When stating fraud/mistake, party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud/mistake

**IQBAL TEST** — only look at P's pleading
1. Complaint must go beyond threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.
2. Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Plausibility is context-specific and requires common sense.

Swanson v. Citibank (2010): displays the two alternative readings of Twiqbal

• Tries to reconcile Rule 8 with Iqbal — P must give enough details about subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together. . . unnecessary to stack up inferences side-by-side to see if P's are more compelling than opposing inferences.
• Posner applies the test more like the Iqbal court (by stacking up inferences in a probabilistic manner)

Cases
Conley v. Gibson (1957). OLD standard for Rule 8

• FRCP 8 doesn't require P to specify detailed facts — party must simply put D on notice [of what the case is about and the grounds upon which it rests] . . . an intentionally liberal approach (occurs b4 discovery)

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007): REJECTED Conley's "no set of facts" language. Imposed a plausibility requirement at the pleading stage.

• Formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action are insufficient . . . Facts must be taken as true
• P's complaint should be dismissed. Plausible that the telecom companies didn't agree to conspire, but rather continued to work in the areas that they had before (conscious parallelism)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009): Applied Twombly to CIVIL ACTIONS

• P must show that petitioners implemented the policy intentionally to discriminate. Complaint did not move the claim from conceivable to plausible — it's just as likely that the gov sought to keep suspected terrorists in secure conditions until suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity ("obvious alternative")
• Dissent: argues that the conclusions (together) are sufficient. Petitioners conceded that they could be liable for the acts of their subordinates.

[squid2211]

Hi guys. To anyone who took Civ Pro and Con Law first semester, a few questions.

1) In Civ Pro, I am reading Glannon and understand the rules. I just have not matched the rule to the rule number (Rule 12(b)(6), etc.). How did your Civ Pro outline look?
2) In Con Law, there are dozens of tests. Was your outline long or short?
3) In Con Law, I am reading Chereminsky. Is it credited to write out the E&E problems?

Edit: Plus, I can't wait to go in maniac mode again. Starting tomorrow, 9 AM - 1 AM! LET'S GO FOOLS.

By the way, those with long commutes, download BarBri videos and listen to them in your car.

A in Civ. Pro. Just to note, my professor preferred, but didn't require case names and specific rule numbers. I'm willing to share, but I'm not sure if there is a way to copy and paste on here from Word without losing formatting?

[stillwater]

.

[Bronck]

Yeah, I got an A in Civ Pro as well. I only used Glannon, no other supplements. I did not structure my outline based on when we learned it in class. Rather, I started with PJ, SMJ, Erie, etc. I heavily infused the outline with Glannon info, though the foundation was what we did in class. I made sure to input all the Erie examples Glannon went over in the Examples & Explanations section since I figured something similar may show up on the exam. For things like PJ, you just need to type like a motherfucker and go through every single analysis, even if it's not entirely on point.

[LetsGoLAW]

Yeah, I got an A in Civ Pro as well. I only used Glannon, no other supplements. I did not structure my outline based on when we learned it in class. Rather, I started with PJ, SMJ, Erie, etc. I heavily infused the outline with Glannon info, though the foundation was what we did in class. I made sure to input all the Erie examples Glannon went over in the Examples & Explanations section since I figured something similar may show up on the exam. For things like PJ, you just need to type like a motherfucker and go through every single analysis, even if it's not entirely on point.

Did you write out the E&E questions?

[Bronck]

Yeah, I got an A in Civ Pro as well. I only used Glannon, no other supplements. I did not structure my outline based on when we learned it in class. Rather, I started with PJ, SMJ, Erie, etc. I heavily infused the outline with Glannon info, though the foundation was what we did in class. I made sure to input all the Erie examples Glannon went over in the Examples & Explanations section since I figured something similar may show up on the exam. For things like PJ, you just need to type like a motherfucker and go through every single analysis, even if it's not entirely on point.

Did you write out the E&E questions?

Nope. I just read through them, generally pretty casually, a couple days before the exam.

[Tiago Splitter]

Also used Glannon for Civ Pro, also got an A. I could tell from my profs previous exams there would be at least one question on PJ and one on Erie, so I focused on those two doctrines and read and re-read all the cases related to those two topics.

I spent some time outlining the rules but pretty much nothing I learned in the first half of my class showed up on the final.

[gaud]

Yeah, I got an A in Civ Pro as well. I only used Glannon, no other supplements. I did not structure my outline based on when we learned it in class. Rather, I started with PJ, SMJ, Erie, etc. I heavily infused the outline with Glannon info, though the foundation was what we did in class. I made sure to input all the Erie examples Glannon went over in the Examples & Explanations section since I figured something similar may show up on the exam. For things like PJ, you just need to type like a motherfucker and go through every single analysis, even if it's not entirely on point.

Another A in civ pro (lol at all of us getting A's *brushes shoulder off*)

+1 to this sort of analysis. I had PT'd the runthrough so many times I had it memorized. I would seriously just go: pennoyer > ishoe> shaffer > wwvw > etc. Just ran through them all and with my professor mentioning the case names was key.

As for the rules, just lay that shit out in the order they would come up in a case.

[mephistopheles]

did anyone have a closed book civpro exam?

[gaud]

did anyone have a closed book civpro exam?

No lol that would suck


Though, I probably would have performed roughly the same. But it would be more stressful not knowing that O/L is right there

[stillwater]

.

[BlueLotus]

Anyone here have a closed book Con Law exam?

[mephistopheles]

did anyone have a closed book civpro exam?

yes, i did.

did you make an outline? or basically how did you prepare differently from the classes that were open notes?

[stillwater]

did anyone have a closed book civpro exam?

yes, i did.

did you make an outline? or basically how did you prepare differently from the classes that were open notes?

i didn't make anything approaching a coherent outline. I would read freer and mark up the margins. I would go back a day or two after and write a rough outline using my marginal notes. It was just another way for me to review the material. then closer to the test I would re-read freer. I never made anything more refined or went back to condense them or anything. I have a pretty good memory so I found it unnecessary to do anything further. But I also didn't use my outlines in my open book exams.

[BlueLotus]

A little levity for the CSWS gals (and gay boys, lol) slogging thru my buddy's ~140 page Crim Law outline

[Bronck]

Got through the rest of my reading for the week today and applied to a few jerbs. Not too bad of a day, I guess. Probably could've done more, but oh well.

Tomorrow = do memo rewrite (I bet I can half-ass that in an hour or so), apply to a lot more jobs, and start my property review.

[Doorkeeper]

What jerbs are still open in March? I know most of fedgov, firms, and shiny PI stuff has gone already. Judges? Local PI stuff?