Most difficult 1L topic

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
gregfootball2001
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:35 am

Most difficult 1L topic

Postby gregfootball2001 » Sun May 27, 2012 11:32 pm

What would you say was the most difficult law topic in 1L for you to wrap your head around?

I'm thinking things like intent, commerce clause, consideration...I'm curious if there are any short list of topics people wish they could have spent more time on.

northerncali9
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:45 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby northerncali9 » Sun May 27, 2012 11:40 pm

Rule against perpetuities /thread.

User avatar
buckilaw
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby buckilaw » Mon May 28, 2012 12:31 am

parol evidence "rule"

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby acrossthelake » Mon May 28, 2012 12:37 am

Didn't take con law...probably something from con law if I took it.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18425
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby bk1 » Mon May 28, 2012 1:01 am

acrossthelake wrote:Didn't take con law...probably something from con law if I took it.


No con law? Sounds TTT to me.

User avatar
Vronsky
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby Vronsky » Mon May 28, 2012 1:07 am

this has to be the trickier parts of Erie and Res Judicata/non-mutual offensive claim preclusion. Although PER is up there.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby acrossthelake » Mon May 28, 2012 1:10 am

bk1 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:Didn't take con law...probably something from con law if I took it.


No con law? Sounds TTT to me.


:lol:

We *did* fall a spot in the rankings. Obviously we're in decline.

User avatar
Hippononymous
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby Hippononymous » Mon May 28, 2012 1:11 am

I think a lot of this will depend on what your professors choose to emphasize. For example, we didn't even discuss the rule against perpetuities in Property (except to say that we weren't going to discuss it), but my professor loved estates and future interests, so we talked about all the rest of it.

Having said that, the hardest topic for me, by far, was the rules surrounding CCRs when there was no common plan. Who could enforce against whom, etc... Took me quite a while to grapple with all of that.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby rad lulz » Mon May 28, 2012 1:16 am

northerncali9 wrote:Rule against perpetuities /thread.

Not that difficult lil breh

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby ph14 » Mon May 28, 2012 1:17 am

I had a tough time mastering the intricacies of the Chevron doctrine in leg reg/administrative law. Also depending on the prof, estates and future interests can take a bit to get used to, but it's not that difficult conceptually really.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13671
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby Flips88 » Mon May 28, 2012 1:25 am

Some civ pro shit like Erie or Supplemental Jurisdiction or some of the weirder joinder rules and loopholes

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Mon May 28, 2012 1:27 am

Nothing is really conceptually "difficult." A more appropriate title would be "most obnoxiously unclear 1L topic." With that, I'll go with:
buckilaw wrote:parol evidence "rule"

ran12
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby ran12 » Mon May 28, 2012 10:45 am

Any topic where the professor wants to get into policy and philosophy. Those type of questions can be a real pain. Civ pro topics like Erie are not that difficult at all. You just have to understand the process.

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby kwais » Mon May 28, 2012 11:00 am

Erie is not terrible, but certainly not fun in application. Rule against perpetuities' difficulty is overrated.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11804
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby ilovesf » Mon May 28, 2012 12:15 pm

Probs future interests for me. Con law wasn't a difficult topic, but the mc for it was hard as fuck.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby sparty99 » Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 pm

Rule against perpetuities; Vertical and Horizontal Privity.

User avatar
fundamentallybroken
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby fundamentallybroken » Mon May 28, 2012 12:31 pm

Augmented estates, though only because we used a state-specific statute and quasi-math created by the professor to determine appropriate percentages of qualifies distributions from portions of the estate. What made it hard was that we were required to use the professor's equation, which didn't really work without tweaks to the formulas, and those that attempted to use their own (and still got to the right answer) were not given points (and, in at least one case, accused of cheating!)

That said, our prof's way of teaching RAP made it pretty easy (for our class, not for the real world.)

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby bostonlawchick » Mon May 28, 2012 12:31 pm

+1 to the parol evidence rule

I also had a lot of difficulty with personal jurisdiction. Not because it's hard to understand, but because every decision had a bunch of opinions with no majority and our prof wanted us to mention them all on the exam. It was hard for me to put it all in a neat and understandable framework.

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby tomwatts » Mon May 28, 2012 1:23 pm

bostonlawchick wrote:I also had a lot of difficulty with personal jurisdiction. Not because it's hard to understand, but because every decision had a bunch of opinions with no majority and our prof wanted us to mention them all on the exam. It was hard for me to put it all in a neat and understandable framework.

Given that we didn't discuss the rule against perpetuities and just scratched the surface of the parole evidence rule, the Erie doctrine, future interests, and one or two of the other notoriously annoying 1L topics, I'd have to go with the above, too, for much the same reasons. The "test," such as it is, is completely unclear: minimum contacts such that exercise of jurisdiction will not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantive justice. What the hell does that even mean? And then the stream of commerce controversies that follow (strict stream of commerce? purposeful availment? purposeful direction?) that have not been resolved yet by the Supreme Court just make it worse.

Glannon resolves a lot of the unclear aspects of the core doctrine, although there are still some things that are just blurry on the margins, because even the courts don't really know what to do.

utlaw2007
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby utlaw2007 » Mon May 28, 2012 2:39 pm

class attendance.

chasgoose
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby chasgoose » Mon May 28, 2012 5:51 pm

tomwatts wrote:
bostonlawchick wrote:I also had a lot of difficulty with personal jurisdiction. Not because it's hard to understand, but because every decision had a bunch of opinions with no majority and our prof wanted us to mention them all on the exam. It was hard for me to put it all in a neat and understandable framework.

Given that we didn't discuss the rule against perpetuities and just scratched the surface of the parole evidence rule, the Erie doctrine, future interests, and one or two of the other notoriously annoying 1L topics, I'd have to go with the above, too, for much the same reasons. The "test," such as it is, is completely unclear: minimum contacts such that exercise of jurisdiction will not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantive justice. What the hell does that even mean? And then the stream of commerce controversies that follow (strict stream of commerce? purposeful availment? purposeful direction?) that have not been resolved yet by the Supreme Court just make it worse.

Glannon resolves a lot of the unclear aspects of the core doctrine, although there are still some things that are just blurry on the margins, because even the courts don't really know what to do.


I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.

jarofsoup
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby jarofsoup » Mon May 28, 2012 6:24 pm

It depends on your teachers in my opinion. I think Civ Pro I was the hardest. Not because it is a hard topic, but personal jurisdiction and all of that crap is just hard when you are in your first couple weeks of school.

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby bostonlawchick » Mon May 28, 2012 6:44 pm

chasgoose wrote:I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.


I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't have a liberal arts background like a lot of law students, but I find the stuff that has a definite yes or no answer much easier. We didn't do RAP in depth, but I had no real problem with it. Complex, yes, but not hard.

I feel like things like PJ are harder. I had a hell of a time with it on my exam and I'm hoping that doesn't kill me. The concept is easy to understand... the part I found difficult was bringing it all together into a coherent answer because there's the balancing test and then all the different stream of commerce theories, none of which have a majority, and trying to fit them all back together into a framework of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ugh... I swore to myself I would never type that phrase again, haha.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13671
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby Flips88 » Mon May 28, 2012 6:52 pm

bostonlawchick wrote:
chasgoose wrote:I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.


I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't have a liberal arts background like a lot of law students, but I find the stuff that has a definite yes or no answer much easier. We didn't do RAP in depth, but I had no real problem with it. Complex, yes, but not hard.

I feel like things like PJ are harder. I had a hell of a time with it on my exam and I'm hoping that doesn't kill me. The concept is easy to understand... the part I found difficult was bringing it all together into a coherent answer because there's the balancing test and then all the different stream of commerce theories, none of which have a majority, and trying to fit them all back together into a framework of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ugh... I swore to myself I would never type that phrase again, haha.

LOL. Pretentious much?

chasgoose
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: Most difficult 1L topic

Postby chasgoose » Mon May 28, 2012 7:01 pm

bostonlawchick wrote:
chasgoose wrote:I think though that the difference between something like that and RAP/parol evidence rule is that even though personal jx makes no sense and would be hard to figure out if you were asked to provide a yes/no answer, its not that bad on a law school exam. You just go run the balancing test and do the on the one had on the other style analysis and then say it could go either way. The problem with RAP is that there usually IS a right answer, the contingent interest is either valid or it isn't. Parol evidence is the same way, sometimes its ok, sometimes its not and the situations where that is the case are hard to remember, but its not a could go one way could go the other sort of thing.


I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't have a liberal arts background like a lot of law students, but I find the stuff that has a definite yes or no answer much easier. We didn't do RAP in depth, but I had no real problem with it. Complex, yes, but not hard.

I feel like things like PJ are harder. I had a hell of a time with it on my exam and I'm hoping that doesn't kill me. The concept is easy to understand... the part I found difficult was bringing it all together into a coherent answer because there's the balancing test and then all the different stream of commerce theories, none of which have a majority, and trying to fit them all back together into a framework of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ugh... I swore to myself I would never type that phrase again, haha.


Yeah maybe I was just lucky that our Civ Pro professor didn't really care what conclusion we came to, just so that we engaged all the moving parts of the balancing test...Most of my answers ended with, well depending on how everything goes it could go either way. It probably would be this, but maybe not...




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SexualSalad, studyingeveryday and 2 guests