Robert Paulson wrote:For torts do you think it is a good idea to restate the law each time you have a new claim? I have been restating the rule, and then making subheaders for each element, but it takes a shit ton of time! Also, most of the model answers I see from schools don't use headers, or even address each element of a claim (or are very conclusory). Any thoughts from the torts masters out there?
You don't want to restate the rule every time. Your grader knows that you know it once you state it. Just a simple, this is an x claim and the above rule y applies --> analysis as to how it applies/why/why not/how the other side will argue/maybe how it will come out or if it should go to a jury.
With headers, if you can use them and they help organize your paper so the professor has an easier time reading it and seeing where your arguments touch the points that you need to make, then you should probably use them.
That being said, it's really about what you write. I've seen model answers that go both ways, but they all usually demonstrate a mastery of the bll, an ability to think analytically, and often a certain level of playfulness with the scenario that allows them to explore issues and claims in novel ways.
Anyway -- the twatwaffles in the room next door have not stopped talking for the last two hours. I'm pretty comfortable here in my apartment study fort, but I might just go over to the library for this torts pt.