Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here Forum

[traehekat]

Quick question regarding cases cited within cases and the extent I need to know them (mainly their names):

For instance, I'm on Commonwealth v Carroll in crim law right now. When describing the time period in which premediation can occur, the court points to Commonwealth v Earnest and quotes "whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated..."

Obviously this is an important component of first degree murder, but will I ever have to point to the case that established this? Figured I may as well check before I get too far in to turn back.

99.9% sure you don't need to recall the names of cases cited within cases, and for that matter I am like 90% sure you don't even really need to recall the names of the cases you are assigned. For the most part you are pretty much expected to understand the rules each case establishes or exemplifies, and then be able to use that rule on a new fact pattern.

Of course, if your professor has a multiple choice section to their exam, I can't really say what you may be expected to know/remember. My guess is that recalling case names and perhaps some specific facts may become more important in that case.

[Burger in a can]

Quick question regarding cases cited within cases and the extent I need to know them (mainly their names):

For instance, I'm on Commonwealth v Carroll in crim law right now. When describing the time period in which premediation can occur, the court points to Commonwealth v Earnest and quotes "whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated..."

Obviously this is an important component of first degree murder, but will I ever have to point to the case that established this? Figured I may as well check before I get too far in to turn back.

99.9% sure you don't need to recall the names of cases cited within cases, and for that matter I am like 90% sure you don't even really need to recall the names of the cases you are assigned. For the most part you are pretty much expected to understand the rules each case establishes or exemplifies, and then be able to use that rule on a new fact pattern.

Of course, if your professor has a multiple choice section to their exam, I can't really say what you may be expected to know/remember. My guess is that recalling case names and perhaps some specific facts may become more important in that case.

I actually signed on to humbly ask whether the bolded is more or less true. It might be obvious to you smart people out there, but it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the cases are basically just examples and explanations for the rules in and of themselves. So if we were to read Commonwealth v Earnest, we would (presumably) mostly be doing so because it establishes that premeditation is irrespective of time. (I haven't read it but I assumed the rule from beach_terror's post about it) And that's all we really need to remember from the case. But the case itself puts this rule into the context of actual events, thereby supposedly making it easier for us to learn?

What I'm asking is, am I thinking about this correctly? All we really need to know are the rules, (which we get from the cases) and how to apply them (which we see exemplified in the cases)?

[rowlf]

Quick question regarding cases cited within cases and the extent I need to know them (mainly their names):

For instance, I'm on Commonwealth v Carroll in crim law right now. When describing the time period in which premediation can occur, the court points to Commonwealth v Earnest and quotes "whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated..."

Obviously this is an important component of first degree murder, but will I ever have to point to the case that established this? Figured I may as well check before I get too far in to turn back.

99.9% sure you don't need to recall the names of cases cited within cases, and for that matter I am like 90% sure you don't even really need to recall the names of the cases you are assigned. For the most part you are pretty much expected to understand the rules each case establishes or exemplifies, and then be able to use that rule on a new fact pattern.

Of course, if your professor has a multiple choice section to their exam, I can't really say what you may be expected to know/remember. My guess is that recalling case names and perhaps some specific facts may become more important in that case.

I actually signed on to humbly ask whether the bolded is more or less true. It might be obvious to you smart people out there, but it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the cases are basically just examples and explanations for the rules in and of themselves. So if we were to read Commonwealth v Earnest, we would (presumably) mostly be doing so because it establishes that premeditation is irrespective of time. (I haven't read it but I assumed the rule from beach_terror's post about it) And that's all we really need to remember from the case. But the case itself puts this rule into the context of actual events, thereby supposedly making it easier for us to learn?

What I'm asking is, am I thinking about this correctly? All we really need to know are the rules, (which we get from the cases) and how to apply them (which we see exemplified in the cases)?

I've heard this but I struggle with it. How can you apply rules without citing the cases and why they're still good law? Just in your own words like that? This doesn't make sense to me....help!

[romothesavior]

I've heard this but I struggle with it. How can you apply rules without citing the cases and why they're still good law? Just in your own words like that? This doesn't make sense to me....help!

It is because law school exams aren't judicial opinions. You don't have weeks to have some law clerk find cases to support your arguments. You have a few hours to type as much information as you can about a given topic, so it isn't expected (generally) for you to cite specific facts or cases.

[saucie]

Quick question regarding cases cited within cases and the extent I need to know them (mainly their names):

For instance, I'm on Commonwealth v Carroll in crim law right now. When describing the time period in which premediation can occur, the court points to Commonwealth v Earnest and quotes "whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated..."

Obviously this is an important component of first degree murder, but will I ever have to point to the case that established this? Figured I may as well check before I get too far in to turn back.

99.9% sure you don't need to recall the names of cases cited within cases, and for that matter I am like 90% sure you don't even really need to recall the names of the cases you are assigned. For the most part you are pretty much expected to understand the rules each case establishes or exemplifies, and then be able to use that rule on a new fact pattern.

Of course, if your professor has a multiple choice section to their exam, I can't really say what you may be expected to know/remember. My guess is that recalling case names and perhaps some specific facts may become more important in that case.

I actually signed on to humbly ask whether the bolded is more or less true. It might be obvious to you smart people out there, but it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the cases are basically just examples and explanations for the rules in and of themselves. So if we were to read Commonwealth v Earnest, we would (presumably) mostly be doing so because it establishes that premeditation is irrespective of time. (I haven't read it but I assumed the rule from beach_terror's post about it) And that's all we really need to remember from the case. But the case itself puts this rule into the context of actual events, thereby supposedly making it easier for us to learn?

What I'm asking is, am I thinking about this correctly? All we really need to know are the rules, (which we get from the cases) and how to apply them (which we see exemplified in the cases)?

In my experience, that is correct. You get the rule from the cases, and chances are, the hypo in the exam will be similar to the facts in the case, or at least the facts for the particular issue. But it is easy to misapply a rule if you have just taken it from someone else's outline instead of reading the case yourself for background. Also, some of my professors gave more points to people who cited, though it was only a matter of distinguishing the #1 paper from the #2 paper.

[Stanford4Me]

Am I missing something? How exactly should I structure my reading of Glannon's Examples and Explanations? (this is for Civ Pro) I feel like what I'm reading has only minimal relevance to what we're going over, but what I'm reading falls under the subject matter we will be discussing. Am I reading this too early?

[skoobily doobily]

Am I missing something? How exactly should I structure my reading of Glannon's Examples and Explanations? (this is for Civ Pro) I feel like what I'm reading has only minimal relevance to what we're going over, but what I'm reading falls under the subject matter we will be discussing. Am I reading this too early?

I'm going through the same thing right now. I haven't found supplements to be remotely helpful at all yet.

[Burger in a can]

Am I missing something? How exactly should I structure my reading of Glannon's Examples and Explanations? (this is for Civ Pro) I feel like what I'm reading has only minimal relevance to what we're going over, but what I'm reading falls under the subject matter we will be discussing. Am I reading this too early?

I'm going through the same thing right now. I haven't found supplements to be remotely helpful at all yet.

Me too. I tried going through the casebook and then checking out a supplement, but actually found it more confusing than just going back through and (gasp!) briefing the cases myself. I know TLS collected wisdom says that briefing is a waste of time but right now it's the only way I actually come to totally understand what I'm reading!

I feel like supplements might be more helpful when I am more adept at reading cases (which I assume will eventually happen?) or just for review purposes.

I have to say that I am most confused by TLS prevailing wisdom, including Arrow's guide. None of it makes sense, at least yet. It's all fine and good to say not to brief, or to "quickly" read the case to extract the rules from it, but I'm still having trouble deciphering wtf is going on in these cases at all, so I think for now I'll stick to the traditional learning methods.

[rbgrocio]

I've heard this but I struggle with it. How can you apply rules without citing the cases and why they're still good law? Just in your own words like that? This doesn't make sense to me....help!

It is because law school exams aren't judicial opinions. You don't have weeks to have some law clerk find cases to support your arguments. You have a few hours to type as much information as you can about a given topic, so it isn't expected (generally) for you to cite specific facts or cases.

It is an exam not a memorandum of law. Most likely, you do not need to know the cases AT ALL. The only class I have ever been expected to cite and explain cases was Civil Procedure. Just ask your professor if he/she expects you to know a case. If not, you are just wasting your time. Just get the gist of the case and move on. Cases are just examples of how a principle has been applied/established.

[rbgrocio]

Am I missing something? How exactly should I structure my reading of Glannon's Examples and Explanations? (this is for Civ Pro) I feel like what I'm reading has only minimal relevance to what we're going over, but what I'm reading falls under the subject matter we will be discussing. Am I reading this too early?

I'm going through the same thing right now. I haven't found supplements to be remotely helpful at all yet.

I'm on my second year and still don't find them helpful. My best grades have always been in classes where I only relied on what I got from class and my outline.

[revolution724]

I've heard this but I struggle with it. How can you apply rules without citing the cases and why they're still good law? Just in your own words like that? This doesn't make sense to me....help!

It is because law school exams aren't judicial opinions. You don't have weeks to have some law clerk find cases to support your arguments. You have a few hours to type as much information as you can about a given topic, so it isn't expected (generally) for you to cite specific facts or cases.

It is an exam not a memorandum of law. Most likely, you do not need to know the cases AT ALL. The only class I have ever been expected to cite and explain cases was Civil Procedure. Just ask your professor if he/she expects you to know a case. If not, you are just wasting your time. Just get the gist of the case and move on. Cases are just examples of how a principle has been applied/established.

My Constitutional Law professor wanted us to know some cases, and my Torts professor wanted us to know a few really important ones (which is why I still remember Vosburg a bit). The rest of the time, it hasn't been necessary. Remember what the case stood for, yes, in your own words as long as they're accurate, and don't waste time remembering the name. It sometimes helps you to remember some of the facts, because I've seen a lot of fact patterns similar to cases we'd studied in the class on exams. Just getting caught up in the facts can be problematic, because professors like to write questions that are ALMOST exactly like that one case you studied, but with a critical twist that alters the whole calculus.

[Stanford4Me]

Me too. I tried going through the casebook and then checking out a supplement, but actually found it more confusing than just going back through and (gasp!) briefing the cases myself. I know TLS collected wisdom says that briefing is a waste of time but right now it's the only way I actually come to totally understand what I'm reading!

I feel like supplements might be more helpful when I am more adept at reading cases (which I assume will eventually happen?) or just for review purposes.

I have to say that I am most confused by TLS prevailing wisdom, including Arrow's guide. None of it makes sense, at least yet. It's all fine and good to say not to brief, or to "quickly" read the case to extract the rules from it, but I'm still having trouble deciphering wtf is going on in these cases at all, so I think for now I'll stick to the traditional learning methods.

I'm briefing every case I read at least until the end of my first semester. I don't understand the "don't brief" mind set, and feel like it might be influenced by the fact that some of these people may be unable to remember what it was like (mentally) during the first few weeks/months of their 1L year.

[Duralex]

How much to brief (or even what a brief looks like) is going to vary from person to person. I'm already briefing less extensively as it's become clear that profs are almost always only interested in a particular issue (or nexus of issues) per case and briefing the other integral elements, even when part of the holding or otherwise dispositive, both wastes time and dilutes memory (once past what is helpful for context and properly limiting application.)

On the other hand, I find it unlikely that I'll stop filling out my little sheets completely as given who I am its helpful to go through the ritual just to make sure I organize my thoughts rather than being satisfied by the general impression I gain from reading the case once or twice.

[Burger in a can]

some of these people may be unable to remember what it was like (mentally) during the first few weeks/months of their 1L year.

That's what I was thinking. I think maybe by the time they realize that they could have gotten away with doing less busywork, they're outside of the perspective that it may have been the busywork, as a whole, that enabled them to be comfortable enough with the curriculum to consider busywork unnecessary. Meta.

[romothesavior]

How much to brief (or even what a brief looks like) is going to vary from person to person. I'm already briefing less extensively as it's become clear that profs are almost always only interested in a particular issue (or nexus of issues) per case and briefing the other integral elements, even when part of the holding or otherwise dispositive, both wastes time and dilutes memory (once past what is helpful for context and properly limiting application.)

On the other hand, I find it unlikely that I'll stop filling out my little sheets completely as given who I am its helpful to go through the ritual just to make sure I organize my thoughts rather than being satisfied by the general impression I gain from reading the case once or twice.

Agreed. I think briefs may be helpful if they are extremely brief. IMO, briefs become problematic when people start including what color shoes the defendant was wearing in the facts and what kind of cereal the judge had that morning in their reasoning. They are supposed to be brief.

I plan to do them until I no longer find them useful. 1L year is a lot of work and I don't want to do unnecessary work. So far I like them, but that may change.

[rejectmaster]

FWIW, one of my professors said yesterday

"when briefing or taking notes on cases always use the most descriptive terms you can.. instead of plaintiff or defendant, use buyer and seller (or whatever it is the two parties did) and avoid using their actual names or anything that would require knowledge of specific details to understand"

[beach_terror]

Outside of the facts that influence the holding and are directly related to the issues of the case, I can already see how unnecessary full briefs are. There's no way a lot of what people are including in their briefs is going to be testable.

[rejectmaster]

Outside of the facts that influence the holding and are directly related to the issues of the case, I already see how unnecessary full briefs are.

i hope we're right, because i'm not doing it

[Burger in a can]

Outside of the facts that influence the holding and are directly related to the issues of the case, I can already see how unnecessary full briefs are. There's no way a lot of what people are including in their briefs is going to be testable.

cool. congrats.

I don't think anyone was saying that they don't understand why others say not to brief- just that the other methods seem really confusing and difficult right now. For you, it might be easy to just pull the relevant issues and rules from the case. Those of us with a smaller brain or smaller ego haven't yet, and may never master that skill. So although I understand that briefing is a waste of time because 99% of what I'm writing down won't be on the test, I need to write it in order to determine the 1% that will.

[rejectmaster]

its totally natural to overdo notes at the beginning but i think that as time passes and we have a better idea of what it is we are expected to know we will be able to narrow our focus

to be honest right now i hardly know what is important and what isn't

[keg411]

I don't mind briefing, but I don't really do it fully and I mainly pull out the rules, how the rules are applied by the court and the holding. My facts sections are bare minimum and honestly I only do the other stuff (facts, procedural history) because it helps for organization. My K's briefs are even smaller but we have a very outside-the-box class in that which pretty much have to do what's on an exam on a class-to-class basis (seriously, again, do UVA people have Professor Leslie? Because then you would know what I'm talking about). But I still consider it "briefing cases".

I also managed to get a couple of outlines from upperclassmen who did VERY well, and after glancing them over, it looks like I'm on the right track in terms of my own outlining. I'm not going to add that stuff in until the end of the semester, though, because as painful as my "outline after class" is time-wise, I feel like it may pay off later (we have syllabuses with headings that match the casebook, so I don't have to worry as much about not knowing what to tie together and the upperclass outlines all appear to do it the same way).

BTW: I also feel that supplements are useless so far. The BLL is in the casebooks and really, I'm more concerned with my ability to apply this stuff than the memorization part.

[beach_terror]

Outside of the facts that influence the holding and are directly related to the issues of the case, I can already see how unnecessary full briefs are. There's no way a lot of what people are including in their briefs is going to be testable.

cool. congrats.

I don't think anyone was saying that they don't understand why others say not to brief- just that the other methods seem really confusing and difficult right now. For you, it might be easy to just pull the relevant issues and rules from the case. Those of us with a smaller brain or smaller ego haven't yet, and may never master that skill. So although I understand that briefing is a waste of time because 99% of what I'm writing down won't be on the test, I need to write it in order to determine the 1% that will.

You realize my comment wasn't directed toward you, or anyone in particular, right? I was merely in agreement with other people voicing the same opinion. Furthermore, the "people" I was referring to are the people that I see in my classes showing up with 2 page printed out briefs, that are literally summaries of everything in the case.

[Cogburn87]

.

[beach_terror]

I was looking at a canned brief to supplement my Intl Shoe reading some. I lol'd at a bullet point at the end, which I don't know if it was meant to be a joke or serious: Washington did not make the argument that the salesmen could have theoretically made sales to one-legged people.

[philosoraptor]

My K's briefs are even smaller

Same here. Some of those cases, the ones included in order to emphasize one simple rule, don't require a "full" brief. I spend a lot more effort extracting relevant facts from civ pro readings. (Prof writes "FACTS" on the board every day.)