Outline strategy Forum

[reverendt]

This might be too specific for this thread but I've noticed in my criminal law class we are doing straight theory. How do you outline for such a class, specifically does this mean the final is going to more theory driven? For example will we have to justify our answers with what theory of punishment drove the courts decision: retributive vs utilitarian? Did the court follow the legality principle in finding liabilty, and will offendor be liable for common law offense under model penal code? In fact is this what most people are studying in crim? Because a person in my school with a different prof told me they are reading cases on criminal theft.

In 2 years of school I really haven't had much in the way of material on exams that wasn't covered in class.
So perhaps you will have a largely theoretical exam. Expect some policy questions.
Just make sure you know the black letter law as it is covered in the cases assigned to you.

[onthecusp]

I have an idea - outline Tort E&E, Civ Pro E&E, Crim Law by Dressler and then supplement them (incorporate) with the few insights gleaned in class. Dumbass idea?

Why don't you use your casebook to form your outline, and use the supplements to fill in the gaps. This way you don't waste time studying things you don't have to know.

Then again, I'm a noob 1L like you, so what the hell do I know.

[Foosters Galore]

Maybe there are others like me, but Im not seeing why I would ever need to use anything other than the casebooks. This says nothing about my intelligence, but rather that every prof I have has explicitly stated "I dont play hide the ball. You'll know what the rule is, and if you dont, come ask me after class." So far, this seems to be accurate. Im pretty much getting everything from briefing, with a few minor adjustments added in class. What use would supplements be to someone in my position? (asked in a non rhetorical fashion)

[rynabrius]

Maybe there are others like me, but Im not seeing why I would ever need to use anything other than the casebooks. This says nothing about my intelligence, but rather that every prof I have has explicitly stated "I dont play hide the ball. You'll know what the rule is, and if you dont, come ask me after class." So far, this seems to be accurate. Im pretty much getting everything from briefing, with a few minor adjustments added in class. What use would supplements be to someone in my position? (asked in a non rhetorical fashion)

If you can really take professors at their word, you'd get no advantage. You might even avoid the disadvantage of having to deal with discrepancies between supplements and lectures. (Hint: the professor is always right.)

However, even with very clear professors, supplements can be a great source of practice material. Taking legal exams is a skill, and few professors provide enough practice exams to really hone that skill to the level I'd feel comfortable with by the day of an exam.

[Generic20101L]

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

The Torts e/e is horrible but I just noticed that Glannon finally got around to adding false imprisonment and "3 new chapters on intentional torts". How it took Glannon 4 editions before adding this material is head scratching.

http://www.aspenlaw.com/product.asp?cat ... planations

The e/e is great for short hypos but not necessarily the best (imo) at breaking down a topic that you are having trouble grasping. For me, the understanding series has always been money on the more difficult topics. I would highly recommend the torts understanding book. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=13132

That book is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible.

[username1]

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

The Torts e/e is horrible but I just noticed that Glannon finally got around to adding false imprisonment and "3 new chapters on intentional torts". How it took Glannon 4 editions before adding this material is head scratching.

http://www.aspenlaw.com/product.asp?cat ... planations

The e/e is great for short hypos but not necessarily the best (imo) at breaking down a topic that you are having trouble grasping. For me, the understanding series has always been money on the more difficult topics. I would highly recommend the torts understanding book. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=13132

That book is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible.

Just because you like it doesn't mean it's "awesome"

[Lucidity]

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

The Torts e/e is horrible but I just noticed that Glannon finally got around to adding false imprisonment and "3 new chapters on intentional torts". How it took Glannon 4 editions before adding this material is head scratching.

http://www.aspenlaw.com/product.asp?cat ... planations

The e/e is great for short hypos but not necessarily the best (imo) at breaking down a topic that you are having trouble grasping. For me, the understanding series has always been money on the more difficult topics. I would highly recommend the torts understanding book. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=13132

That book is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible.

Just because you like it doesn't mean it's "awesome"

Opinions are subjective? How mind blowing.

[JOThompson]

I've mainly only heard positive things about the Torts E&E.

[Generic20101L]

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

The Torts e/e is horrible but I just noticed that Glannon finally got around to adding false imprisonment and "3 new chapters on intentional torts". How it took Glannon 4 editions before adding this material is head scratching.

http://www.aspenlaw.com/product.asp?cat ... planations

The e/e is great for short hypos but not necessarily the best (imo) at breaking down a topic that you are having trouble grasping. For me, the understanding series has always been money on the more difficult topics. I would highly recommend the torts understanding book. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=13132

That book is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible.

Just because you like it doesn't mean it's "awesome"

It is so much closer to awesome than horrible. It is in no way horrible.

[bleedcubbieblue]

I got some outlines from a 3L that got A's in my profs classes. They pretty much follow along exactly what the prof is going over in class that day. I add things from the lecture, and things that I read in the E & E's to this outline as I go. Review the outline every weekend and I'll start practicing hypos in a couple weeks.