I'm getting used to learning through case reading and I seem to understand the "main point" of what the court wanted to say and how that point relates to the overall structure of the class BUT... I have trouble understanding some of the reasonings for the minor points..
maybe my mind is zoning out reading those parts since I think it's not important but I'm scared I might miss some crucial information in case I'm wrong and that what I think is trivial is actually paramount. this is especially true for civ pro.
question then is: did you guys understand most of the minor points in the cases you read? and how they did or did not interact with the major points?
thanks in advance
The good news is that no one really has this figured out. Even lawyers. Being able to understand "the main point" or the "secondary points" is really a bread and butter skill for a litigator. Here are a few tips:
1. For doctrinal courses, use supplements. It's a shortcut that will let you figure stuff out quicker. Just realize that there won't be supplements for all cases in your future career. (You should work to develop this skill, but I don't think you should try to practice this skill while reading Torts or Civ Pro cases.)
2. You might be the kind of person who is easily distracted. That was the case for me. Don't sweat it--many if not most of your classmates are the same way. They just don't admit it.
3. Cases in doctrinal classes are in the book because they serve to illustrate some point. Whatever that main point is, is important. Everything else is irrelevant for exams, regardless of what stuff is discussed in class.
4. Talk to your classmates and friends and see what they think. Obviously take what they say with a grain of salt, but if 4 of your friends are making a point you missed, you might want to write it down.