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

[burtonrideclub]

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.)

So you have Mullenix also.

[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.)

So you have Mullenix also.

Yep, she's a trip. I think you and I are both in 3A.

[skoobily doobily]

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.

That is awesome. I thought though that no sales at all were being done in Washington . . . even if they happened to be one-legged. Truthfully I felt bad for Intl. Shoe, they went through all that trouble just to avoid jurisdiction, and what happens? Some goody-two-shoes judge decides to add a clause to Pennoyer and give it to Washington anyways

[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.

That is awesome. I thought though that no sales at all were being done in Washington . . . even if they happened to be one-legged. Truthfully I felt bad for Intl. Shoe, they went through all that trouble just to avoid jurisdiction, and what happens? Some goody-two-shoes judge decides to add a clause to Pennoyer and give it to Washington anyways

Well, a fact that wasn't in my case was that Intl. Shoe only gave their sales reps left shoes instead of both (making sure that they couldn't make a sale and implicate the company).

[keg411]

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.

That is awesome. I thought though that no sales at all were being done in Washington . . . even if they happened to be one-legged. Truthfully I felt bad for Intl. Shoe, they went through all that trouble just to avoid jurisdiction, and what happens? Some goody-two-shoes judge decides to add a clause to Pennoyer and give it to Washington anyways

They weren't making sales as in you could go to one of the displays and walk away with shoes. But they would take orders from people in Washington, the orders were sent to the headquarters in St. Louis and then St. Louis would ship the shoes to the people who ordered them directly (whether they were in Washington or somewhere else). The part about them only having left shoes wasn't in my casebook .

[rdcws000]

Question on understanding BLL (and yes I did read through the past couple pages, but don't have time to read the whole thread). If this has been asked and answered, sue me.

I am doing OK at pulling out the rules of law from the cases. My question is, do I need to be able to state the specific restatement #, or just understand the rule in it? I've been including the restatement #s, statute names, etc in my notes. Is this necessary?

[Duralex]

I've been recording the same information, but haven't decided how much to memorize yet. Taking it down is easy enough.

I'm guessing it may vary by class: It seems like knowing the restatement or code section number might be more important for K's than torts.

[rdcws000]

I'm hoping it's just the rule we need to retain for the exams.

I read GTM and it suggested NOT restating law in exam answers (which would entail the name of the rule/law doesn't matter) but I'd like to find out if there are any other reasons (besides maybe Bar prep) to name rules, beyond just understanding them.

[deneuve39]

Question on understanding BLL (and yes I did read through the past couple pages, but don't have time to read the whole thread). If this has been asked and answered, sue me.

I am doing OK at pulling out the rules of law from the cases. My question is, do I need to be able to state the specific restatement #, or just understand the rule in it? I've been including the restatement #s, statute names, etc in my notes. Is this necessary?

This is a good question, and my answer is that it sort of depends on the professor and the class. For civ pro, you need to know the rules and every subsection of the rules and be able to cite to them on the exam. For contracts, my prof put particular emphasis on knowing the Restatement (and the differences b/w the Restatement and the common law), so I studied them enough to cite them on the exam. For torts, again this is perhaps the most prof-specific, but we did need to know how the Restatement differed in substantive ways from the common law and why it differed--BUT this is the class where I cited the Restatement the least on the exam.

So, for now, I think it's a good idea to put them in your notes b/c it's hard to tell which Restatement sections are super important and which you probably won't need to cite at the beginning on the semester. But when you're outlining and have a better sense of what you need to know for the exam, you'll be thankful you were over-inclusive in your notes.

[traehekat]

I'm hoping it's just the rule we need to retain for the exams.

I read GTM and it suggested NOT restating law in exam answers (which would entail the name of the rule/law doesn't matter) but I'd like to find out if there are any other reasons (besides maybe Bar prep) to name rules, beyond just understanding them.

This is one thing that appears to be in conflict with LEEWS. LEEWS suggests stating the law when you begin discussion of a new issue. So if you are going to begin a discussion of a possible battery, you being with simply stating the rule. This alerts the professor to exactly what issue you are discussing. It is kind of an organization exercise.

Some professors will tell you specifically not to state the law, however. Obviously in this case, you do not state the law. But I think you kind of indirectly state it when you are intertwining facts and law in your discussion of issues.

[beach_terror]

There's so many damn gunners in my section, sometimes it feels like the jungles of Vietnam.

[bleedcubbieblue]

I have read all of the cases, but quickly, just to get the general ideas. I have yet to do a brief (and I don't plan to), I've pulled all of mine from various sources on the net.

I scored a great outline from a 3L that got A's in my profs classes. It basically follows to the T exactly what the professor is covering that day in class. I add notes to the outline that I find to be important. I also add notes to the outline as I read the corresponding sections(s) in the E & E's, which I consider to be my class textbooks. I also use the library copies of the "understanding" series books.

So basically at the end of the semester, I will have covered all of the topics 3 times: once in class, once with the E & E's, and once with the understanding books, which should lead to an even more solid outline come December.

I plan to mix in doing cali lessons, my profs old practice tests, and various hypos along the way to get familiar with how to write an exam. I also went over LEEWS and I highly recommend it. I'm basically trying to follow a program similar to what Arrow laid out.

Anyone else doing similar things to me?

[Duralex]

...

I'm basically trying to follow a program similar to what Arrow laid out.

Anyone else doing similar things to me?

Yes.

[sccjnthn]

I've been following the recommendations as well. Only issue so far has been finding case summaries. I bought 4 of the high court summaries but there doesn't seem to be summary book tied to my contracts casebook.

Is there somewhere else I should be looking online?

Also my library doesn't seem to have too many old tests for professors, is there an alternate source for these?

[bleedcubbieblue]

I find the briefs on http://www.lawnix.com/cases/ tend to hit most of the main points. I have also used lexis and some google searches.

I've been following the recommendations as well. Only issue so far has been finding case summaries. I bought 4 of the high court summaries but there doesn't seem to be summary book tied to my contracts casebook.

Is there somewhere else I should be looking online?



Also my library doesn't seem to have too many old tests for professors, is there an alternate source for these?

I would ask your professor if he/she has any to provide. If not, this is a great link. http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =3&t=12526

[revolution724]

Also my library doesn't seem to have too many old tests for professors, is there an alternate source for these?

Some professors hand them out later in the semester. My Torts prof handed out a bunch about six weeks before the end of the semester.

[revolution724]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

[kalvano]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

[Thirteen]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

Search for at least one case per day. You get 10 points each time you do it.

[revolution724]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

Search for at least one case per day. You get 10 points each time you do it.

Yeah, that. You can sign up for them on the Lexis and Westlaw law school pages and you get them from pulling up documents. Not just cases, but statutes and probably secondary sources too. There are also extra training sessions you can attend to get bonus points.

--LinkRemoved--

http://lawschool.westlaw.com/ - should have a Rewards thing on the splash page.

I am partial to the Starbucks gift cards. 715 points = free $10 worth of trendy but mediocre food and coffee, awwyeah.

[inchoate_con]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

Search for at least one case per day. You get 10 points each time you do it.

It must not work with WestlawNext. I'm searching daily without racking up points.

[kalvano]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

Search for at least one case per day. You get 10 points each time you do it.

That's cool. You can get a lot of stuff if you save them for three years.

[zeth006]

OH, pro tip: sign up for Lexis and Westlaw points. You'll use them when doing your assignments for Legal Writing, and you can get free stuff. Sure, they're exploiting you, but you might as well exploit them back.

How do you get them?

Search for at least one case per day. You get 10 points each time you do it.

That's cool. You can get a lot of stuff if you save them for three years.

Favoriting this.

[Duralex]

My hobby this week: downloading the restatements in full text PDF format so I can feed them to my database. I can't imagine how much all of the crap like that I've been doing would cost on a real law firm subscription, LOL.

[inchoate_con]

My hobby this week: downloading the restatements in full text PDF format so I can feed them to my database. I can't imagine how much all of the crap like that I've been doing would cost on a real law firm subscription, LOL.

You mean something like this:
--ImageRemoved-- (LinkRemoved)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us