Why shouldn't cases be briefed? Forum

[Mal Reynolds]

The Erie doctrines are the most convoluted cases in all of 1L. You absolutely should not read anything having to do with Erie. Just get the framework from a supplement.

[sideroxylon]

yeah not sure what this "oh you need to read erie" flame is

I still haven't read Erie, fwiw

[Br3v]

I'm a 2L who briefs every case and still do. Ends up being a few sentences per case.

lol

What are you doing if your not writing down a few sentences from each case?

i'm not briefing, that's for damn sure

more like

"prof. says x"
"two words to remind me of facts"
"holding"

Yeah, don't know how to tell you this but you're briefing

[sideroxylon]

Yeah, don't know how to tell you this but you're briefing

I'm really not, especially because I don't do it in advance or by case

like, lol @ conflating any taking of notes w/ briefing

(but thanks, I'll keep your advice in mind throughout 3L)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, notes =/= briefs. At least when I started, I was taught an actual "brief" format, which included the procedural posture, facts, rule, holding, etc. etc. Including all the info that was recommended initially took a good 1/2 - 3/4 of a page. So if by briefing someone means going through this kind of formal process, I found it useful for the first few weeks of 1L until you get the knack of reading cases and knowing where to find the info you should get out of that case. It's a tool for learning to read a case. But the actual formal process of writing the brief was way too slow and overinclusive to continue beyond that.

But that's because to me "briefing" is different from writing a couple of sentences with prof comment/a fact or 2 that triggers your memory of the case/the rule of the case. The latter is just taking notes.

[sideroxylon]

Eh, notes =/= briefs. At least when I started, I was taught an actual "brief" format, which included the procedural posture, facts, rule, holding, etc. etc. Including all the info that was recommended initially took a good 1/2 - 3/4 of a page. So if by briefing someone means going through this kind of formal process, I found it useful for the first few weeks of 1L until you get the knack of reading cases and knowing where to find the info you should get out of that case. It's a tool for learning to read a case. But the actual formal process of writing the brief was way too slow and overinclusive to continue beyond that.

But that's because to me "briefing" is different from writing a couple of sentences with prof comment/a fact or 2 that triggers your memory of the case/the rule of the case. The latter is just taking notes.

this is also what I learned/associate with "briefing"

[Br3v]

(but thanks, I'll keep your advice in mind throughout 3L)

No prob, if you run into more trouble in the future just PM me

[Mal Reynolds]

(but thanks, I'll keep your advice in mind throughout 3L)

No prob, if you run into more trouble in the future just PM me[/quote]

Ugh

[chuckbass]

I read the cases, take the case summary from lexis and put it into a word doc, and call it a day

I want to be able to buy an oven or like a washing machine or something in 3 years with all of the points I'm racking up

[PepperJack]

Briefing is merely a way of making sure you're extracting why the case is there, what it does, and how to use it. Like the bunny ears for tying shoes, it's merely one way to get the job done. There are other more time efficient ways, but it's a proven system if you're nervous of doing what you think is better. It's also a way of testing whether you're focusing on extraneous shit or the wrong shit. You should ultimately be able to reduce each case to one sentence, and know what type of story it would be relevant to offhand. Also, a lot of the opening cases from the 1800s have been changed, so there's no way it's going to be useful or get you points unless a fact pattern is set in 1820.

[pancakes3]

It's a waste of time in classes (criminal law, contracts, torts) where the cases are intended only to illustrate the rule

It often is useful in classes (civ pro, con law) where the cases are the rule

Definitely picking up what this post is putting down.

[McAvoy]

Briefing is merely a way of making sure you're extracting why the case is there, what it does, and how to use it. Like the bunny ears for tying shoes, it's merely one way to get the job done. There are other more time efficient ways, but it's a proven system if you're nervous of doing what you think is better. It's also a way of testing whether you're focusing on extraneous shit or the wrong shit. You should ultimately be able to reduce each case to one sentence, and know what type of story it would be relevant to offhand. Also, a lot of the opening cases from the 1800s have been changed, so there's no way it's going to be useful or get you points unless a fact pattern is set in 1820.

[Mal Reynolds]

Briefing is merely a way of making sure you're extracting why the case is there, what it does, and how to use it. Like the bunny ears for tying shoes, it's merely one way to get the job done. There are other more time efficient ways, but it's a proven system if you're nervous of doing what you think is better. It's also a way of testing whether you're focusing on extraneous shit or the wrong shit. You should ultimately be able to reduce each case to one sentence, and know what type of story it would be relevant to offhand. Also, a lot of the opening cases from the 1800s have been changed, so there's no way it's going to be useful or get you points unless a fact pattern is set in 1820.

You'll go far, 1L.

[Attax]

Briefing is merely a way of making sure you're extracting why the case is there, what it does, and how to use it. Like the bunny ears for tying shoes, it's merely one way to get the job done. There are other more time efficient ways, but it's a proven system if you're nervous of doing what you think is better. It's also a way of testing whether you're focusing on extraneous shit or the wrong shit. You should ultimately be able to reduce each case to one sentence, and know what type of story it would be relevant to offhand. Also, a lot of the opening cases from the 1800s have been changed, so there's no way it's going to be useful or get you points unless a fact pattern is set in 1820.

You'll go far, 1L.

Thank goodness he isn't in my section!

[McAvoy]

Briefing is merely a way of making sure you're extracting why the case is there, what it does, and how to use it. Like the bunny ears for tying shoes, it's merely one way to get the job done. There are other more time efficient ways, but it's a proven system if you're nervous of doing what you think is better. It's also a way of testing whether you're focusing on extraneous shit or the wrong shit. You should ultimately be able to reduce each case to one sentence, and know what type of story it would be relevant to offhand. Also, a lot of the opening cases from the 1800s have been changed, so there's no way it's going to be useful or get you points unless a fact pattern is set in 1820.

You'll go far, 1L.

(Blushing)

[bombaysippin]

Any discernible difference between using westlaw, bloomberg, lexis for case briefs?

ETA: Not just promotions, but like actual content

[Scotusnerd]

Learn the law. Write the law. I don't care how.

-Every managing partner ever.

[ymmv]

Any discernible difference between using westlaw, bloomberg, lexis for case briefs?

ETA: Not just promotions, but like actual content

Westlaw headnotes are the shit.

[chuckbass]

Any discernible difference between using westlaw, bloomberg, lexis for case briefs?

ETA: Not just promotions, but like actual content

I can get an oven from lexis that is my distinction.

ETA: I'm not sober.

[kcdc1]

I briefed most cases... ended up top 1%... looking back, the marginal benefit that briefing the cases provided during exams, whether it be multiple choice or essay, does not compare with the time wasted in briefing the cases.

probably would be best to skim read the case, write notes in the margins, highlight the issue and holding, and print out a quimbee case brief

"Here's what I did to get great results. But it required productively using 20+ hours per week, so I'd recommend that you do the opposite."

Read the cases, extract the rule, take thorough notes, quote the bit that might come in handy on an exam. It's not that much work at all.

[dudley12]

only reason is being 'prepared' to be called on in class. it's pretty lame imo...as a 3L I find it hard to believe that profs are still cold calling on the procedural history of cases...my god, there are better things to talk about.

[Mal Reynolds]

I don't think the case briefs from the legal sites are all that great. Use old outlines or websites.

[McAvoy]

only reason is being 'prepared' to be called on in class. it's pretty lame imo...as a 3L I find it hard to believe that profs are still cold calling on the procedural history of cases...my god, there are better things to talk about.

I havent heard this question asked yet unless it was like crucial for understanding the facts. They seem to be allocating their time to other bullshit.

[Scotusnerd]

I had this problem my first year, but then I figured out how to fix it. I hate when professors burble about the case history, so I put a stop to it as soon as I can. Why? Because they're talking out of their asses and don't really know shit about how the case plays out.

Whenever I get a professor that wants to go off the deep end with procedural history, I start asking them harder questions about the disposition of the case, party cross appeals, and other such nonsense. Oftentimes (especially in the earlier confusing cases) the high courts mess up their procedures pretty badly, so it's fertile ground for calling a professor on their bullshit.

Since the douchebags only bother reading that one case, not the appeals below nor the procedural history after, they don't really know what's actually going on. When I ask these questions, I generally get a mumbling response that sounds vaguely like "well, it seems to be a local state procedural law" I have yet to find one who can answer these questions confidently.

I repeat this process with other cases until they figure out that they need to shut the hell up about procedural history.

[sideroxylon]

I had this problem my first year, but then I figured out how to fix it. I hate when professors burble about the case history, so I put a stop to it as soon as I can. Why? Because they're talking out of their asses and don't really know shit about how the case plays out.

Whenever I get a professor that wants to go off the deep end with procedural history, I start asking them harder questions about the disposition of the case, party cross appeals, and other such nonsense. Oftentimes (especially in the earlier confusing cases) the high courts mess up their procedures pretty badly, so it's fertile ground for calling a professor on their bullshit.

Since the douchebags only bother reading that one case, not the appeals below nor the procedural history after, they don't really know what's actually going on. When I ask these questions, I generally get a mumbling response that sounds vaguely like "well, it seems to be a local state procedural law" I have yet to find one who can answer these questions confidently.

I repeat this process with other cases until they figure out that they need to shut the hell up about procedural history.

you sound entirely insufferable and a I pray I never work with you