Least favorite/predicted least favorite 1L class. Forum

[jarv1506]

As of tomorrow 2 weeks in. LRW by far.

[Iceman389]

To play along: Civ Pro only because the first few cases have been all "motion to dismiss granted because P's attorney filed suit in the wrong court." (A classmate even asked prof "who cares if it was in the wrong court, it's just a technicality.")

When you boil it down, all the rules of procedure are "technicalities" thats what rules are. As for your stupid who cares if its the wrong court comment, your future client is going to care a whole lot if you screw him or her because you don't know the rules of jurisdiction. See what a judge says when you tell him "who cares" when he says WTF are you doing here, this court doesn't have jurisdiction GTFO.

[Kabuo]

To play along: Civ Pro only because the first few cases have been all "motion to dismiss granted because P's attorney filed suit in the wrong court." (A classmate even asked prof "who cares if it was in the wrong court, it's just a technicality.")

When you boil it down, all the rules of procedure are "technicalities" thats what rules are. As for your stupid who cares if its the wrong court comment, your future client is going to care a whole lot if you screw him or her because you don't know the rules of jurisdiction. See what a judge says when you tell him "who cares" when he says WTF are you doing here, this court doesn't have jurisdiction GTFO.

This seems a tad venomous. The "who cares" comment is his classmate's. Changing my vote to LRW today.

[Naked Dude]

To play along: Civ Pro only because the first few cases have been all "motion to dismiss granted because P's attorney filed suit in the wrong court." (A classmate even asked prof "who cares if it was in the wrong court, it's just a technicality.")

When you boil it down, all the rules of procedure are "technicalities" thats what rules are. As for your stupid who cares if its the wrong court comment, your future client is going to care a whole lot if you screw him or her because you don't know the rules of jurisdiction. See what a judge says when you tell him "who cares" when he says WTF are you doing here, this court doesn't have jurisdiction GTFO.

This seems a tad venomous. The "who cares" comment is his classmate's. Changing my vote to LRW today.

I dunno man, even for someone who just started law school "who cares if its the wrong court" is a really inexcusably careless answer.

[jacketman03]

After 2 full weeks, I'm changing my vote to LRW. I seriously hate that class.

And re: the "it's just a technicality" thing-in my CivPro class there seems to be a trend of people answering the prof's questions with "technically...", to which the prof responds with "I'm a lawyer, I kind of care about technically."

[maxm2764]

For the love of god, Civ Pro. It's the worst.

[FeelTheHeat]

I'm guessing it's gonna be CivPro, but out of CrimLaw, Torts, and Contracts, I'd have to go with Contracts. I find it interesting, but it hasn't been pleasant/easy to learn.

[jacketman03]

I'm guessing it's gonna be CivPro, but out of CrimLaw, Torts, and Contracts, I'd have to go with Contracts. I find it interesting, but it hasn't been pleasant/easy to learn.

I've found Contracts to be not as bad as I was expecting, and I kind of like it.

[Cogburn87]

Torts has more votes than Property and ConLaw only has three votes?

What is this I don't even

[FeelTheHeat]

Torts has more votes than Property and ConLaw only has three votes?

What is this I don't even

Confuses me, too. TBH I feel like I would find it far more interesting (and I would assume, easier) than those two.

[Naked Dude]

Torts is pretty interesting as I have tossed around the idea of personal injury. Contracts seems pretty straightforward, if it weren't for a lively professor though I'd probably fall asleep. Civ Pro is saved by a good professor and well-written casebook (and Freer's hornbook isn't half bad either). Crim is so far a lot of policy/basic theories of punishment-which I did extensive research in during college so it's not really interesting me so far.

LRW sucks but my adjunct is a great writer and teacher and is a gem of information about his work experience.

[queenlizzie13]

Torts is pretty interesting as I have tossed around the idea of personal injury. Contracts seems pretty straightforward, if it weren't for a lively professor though I'd probably fall asleep. Civ Pro is saved by a good professor and well-written casebook (and Freer's hornbook isn't half bad either). Crim is so far a lot of policy/basic theories of punishment-which I did extensive research in during college so it's not really interesting me so far.

LRW sucks but my adjunct is a great writer and teacher and is a gem of information about his work experience.

Love CivPro right now and Criminal law. Contracts seems interesting enough at the moment. The class I least like right now is torts - maybe its the professor, I dunno, but it kind of bores me?

[D'Angelo]

definitely contracts! we are taking property next semester, not looking forward to it at all...civil procedure is really interesting so far...

[TheFutureLawyer]

Contracts. By far my most boring class. My professor spends so much time on every single case, it's hard to not fall asleep way in the back (not that I ever actually would). I guess the upside is that we'll have less material to remember for the final (or we'll have to speed up during the last three weeks to catch up ).

[kjadkins]

I am already beyond lost in contracts and we haven't even had the first class yet. I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to be getting out of these cases. So Ray v. Eurice: you signed it, you're responsible for it? That seems to simple... I feel like there's no way I'm getting the big picture.

[TheFutureLawyer]

I am already beyond lost in contracts and we haven't even had the first class yet. I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to be getting out of these cases. So Ray v. Eurice: you signed it, you're responsible for it? That seems to simple... I feel like there's no way I'm getting the big picture.

From lawnix:
Absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake, a party who signs a written contract with or without reading it is bound by his signature. The court held that even if D had been negligent in his understanding of the terms of the contract he would be bound. The test for assent is objective and not subjective. Intent is determined from what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. D wrongfully breached his contract with P and P was entitled to the difference between the cost agreed upon and the cost to complete the house.

That's pretty much it. My prof also talked about how the "meeting of the minds" metaphor is misleading.

[kjadkins]

I am already beyond lost in contracts and we haven't even had the first class yet. I just can't figure out what I'm supposed to be getting out of these cases. So Ray v. Eurice: you signed it, you're responsible for it? That seems to simple... I feel like there's no way I'm getting the big picture.

From lawnix:
Absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake, a party who signs a written contract with or without reading it is bound by his signature. The court held that even if D had been negligent in his understanding of the terms of the contract he would be bound. The test for assent is objective and not subjective. Intent is determined from what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. D wrongfully breached his contract with P and P was entitled to the difference between the cost agreed upon and the cost to complete the house.

That's pretty much it. My prof also talked about how the "meeting of the minds" metaphor is misleading.

Ok. This makes me feel less dumb. Lol. But I still hate contracts.

[X_Soda]

Wait -- I'm seeing a lot of people mention 4 substantive classes instead of 3. Am I the only one who goes to a school that has only 3 substantive classes with LRW? Am I at some kind of slacker school? Sweet!

[OneEl14]

I would've predicted before the semester that my least favorite would be Civil Procedure and my favorite would be Property. Now I think it's going to end up being the opposite.

[kjadkins]

Wait -- I'm seeing a lot of people mention 4 substantive classes instead of 3. Am I the only one who goes to a school that has only 3 substantive classes with LRW? Am I at some kind of slacker school? Sweet!

We have 4: Contracts, Civ Pro, Torts and Con Law in the fall, and Crim Law, Property, Practice & Professionalism, and an elective in the spring. And LRW is a year-long course.

[TheFutureLawyer]

Yeah at GW its:
1st Year:
1st Semester:
Contracts 1
Civil Procedure 1
Torts
Criminal Law
Legal Research and Writing

2nd Semester:
Contracts 2
Civil Procedure 2
Property
Constitutional Law
Introduction to Advocacy

[X_Soda]

Too weird! We don't even take Con Law until 2L year, and I'm pretty sure no one takes Civ Pro until second semester.

[ilovesf]

Wait -- I'm seeing a lot of people mention 4 substantive classes instead of 3. Am I the only one who goes to a school that has only 3 substantive classes with LRW? Am I at some kind of slacker school? Sweet!

For me in the fall it is 3 classes and LRW, and in the spring 4 classes and moot court.

[target]

Wait -- I'm seeing a lot of people mention 4 substantive classes instead of 3. Am I the only one who goes to a school that has only 3 substantive classes with LRW? Am I at some kind of slacker school? Sweet!

For me in the fall it is 3 classes and LRW, and in the spring 4 classes and moot court.

wow, you are required to take moot court in 1L spring? that sounds exciting.

[Kabuo]

Wait -- I'm seeing a lot of people mention 4 substantive classes instead of 3. Am I the only one who goes to a school that has only 3 substantive classes with LRW? Am I at some kind of slacker school? Sweet!

For me in the fall it is 3 classes and LRW, and in the spring 4 classes and moot court.

wow, you are required to take moot court in 1L spring? that sounds exciting.

+1 on the moot court thing. At WUSTL, it's 3 substantive classes per semester. GW sounds intense.