What's a "doctrinal" 1L class and what isn't? Forum

[Stylistics]

I'd imagine CivPro and Torts are pretty straightforward exams where if you know the elements that constitute something or which rule/factors courts consider, you're good. In those courses, I don't think there's wiggle room for profs to move away from statements of the law like Prosser.

On the other hand, I can see criminal law as a forum for the prof "to seriously question whether our penological objectives and tools measure up to those of other Western democracies."

What about something like property?

How should your approach to each class differ if you know what type of class it is?

[banjo]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but it's true that "law" means different things in different courses. Here's how I'd describe the courses based on my own, possibly idiosyncratic, experience:

In common law courses (Torts/Property/Contracts), you're usually applying a general principle of law that the courts have promulgated over the years (or centuries). For example, a court might say: "In the field of contracts, we must look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention." In other words, the court is saying that you can't get out of a contract simply by saying "Oh, I was just kidding."

Of course, you'll occasionally have to apply statutes in Contracts too, since the Uniform Commercial Code overrides the common law in certain kinds of transactions. And in Property, if you cover zoning law and/or eminent domain, you'll sometimes be applying the law announced in Supreme Court decisions.

Criminal law works differently. A judge can't punish someone as a criminal for violating some general principle of criminal law; there has to be a statute on the books. So unlike in Torts/Property/Contracts, you'll be applying the Model Penal Code and/or state and federal statutes, depending on what your professor wants to emphasize. This is why criminal law is THE course about statutory interpretation.

Constitutional Law, on the other hand, is THE course about reading cases. You have to actually read the cases, understand the majority, concurrences, and dissents, and puzzle out what the law actually is according to the court. Constitutional Law does NOT involve close-reading of the Constitution; it involves close reading of long, windy, politically-charged opinions.

Civil Procedure involves reading the Federal Rules, cases interpreting the Federal Rules, some Supreme Court cases when you get to personal jurisdiction, and some statutory interpretation. It's a good mix of things.

Don't know if that helps, but I already typed it, so I'm going to press Submit.

[pancakes3]

OP is just confused as to what people mean when they say "doctrinal" classes. All 1L classes are doctrinal in that it's the law, period, full stop. Non-doctrinal classes come in the later stuff: administrative law, securities, corporations, etc.

[BVest]

All 1L classes are doctrinal except LRW.

[bk1]

All 1L classes are doctrinal except LRW.

Not true at all schools.

[BVest]

Fair enough. But true for most. And certainly the conversation as it was going on was getting nowhere near the distinction between doctrinal and non-doctrinal.

[BVest]

www.top-law-schools.com.org