What is the most famous 1L case? Forum

[quiver]

If you interpret the question as "what is the most famous case for 1Ls" I think it comes down to Erie and Palsgraf. We had endless discussion on both and I heard about both of them during 1L long before actually getting to them. I voted Erie; I think it's the only case in any of my outlines that has an entire section on it (although Chevron is close in Admin).

If you interpret the question as "what is the case read in 1L but most famous universally" I think it's obviously Marbury.

[InnocuousDiatribe]

I do not fucking understand Marbury v. Madison as a 1L spring law student, why the fuck do they teach this shit to kids? if only it were as simple as "dat judicial review"

Because it literally defined the federal judiciary's role in the tripartite scheme of government. Obviously, all of the complex legal stuff is outside of the scope of a high school history class, but from the standpoint of teaching American history/government responsibly, it's material that all students should probably get exposure to. IMO.

[ilovesf]

I do not fucking understand Marbury v. Madison as a 1L spring law student, why the fuck do they teach this shit to kids? if only it were as simple as "dat judicial review"

Because it literally defined the federal judiciary's role in the tripartite scheme of government. Obviously, all of the complex legal stuff is outside of the scope of a high school history class, but from the standpoint of teaching American history/government responsibly, it's material that all students should probably get exposure to. IMO.

We were mostly talking about it being taught in elementary school, not high school. I get why it's taught in high school, but not really to younger kids. Anyway, that's totally off topic.

[AreJay711]

I say it is Pierson v. Post because it decided how we came to take possession of of fugitive resources and probably the most important case re: property ever. It is also more memorable and entertaining than most others (plus probably the only case that I remember the dissent with more than a groan). While Marbury might be important, you really don't think of it after the fact even if it has some elements of political question. We didn't even talk about Erie.

[shoeshine]

I think Palsgraf is winning not only because of its interesting fact pattern but because it explains an entire subject with one case. And its precedent is still applicable today, including the Andrews dissent.

Also, BUMP to get more votes.

[HWS08]

Marbury v. Madison is the most famous case. You learned this case in elementary school. I don't remember Palsgraf being inserted into my history books as a kid.

I didn't study this case in elementary school.

Definitely learned about it a couple times in middle and high school.

I voted Marbury because Marbury was the only one I'd heard of before starting to look into attending law school. That may be in part because of my poli sci background, but I'm pretty sure I learned about it in my regular old American history class in high school too.

If you were talking about most famous among the American population in general I'd say Brown v. Board of Ed or Roe v. Wade, but I know those aren't covered in many 1L courses (our Con Law is two parts and we don't cover individual rights until 2L or 3L year)

[Gamecubesupreme]

I am almost 99% certain that Marbury v. Madison is more famous than Palsgraf.

I mean, history and poli sci courses talk about Marbury.

Only law school talk about Palsgraf.

Considering there are more people who have taken history and poli sci courses than Palsgraf, I am pretty sure Marbury wins in terms of fame.

[Guchster]

shoeshine can you clarify what the fuck you're surveying here to get the 0L poasters out. do you mean famous 1L course for law students/lawyers or most famous 1L course for laypersons or both or none of the above? based on your selection cases, most that are really only known to law students/former law students, and notable absence of cases that are not so big 1L but important in American history (i.e., Plessy, Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, etc.), i'm assuming the former.

[jess]

.

[shoeshine]

To clarify: I meant famous to 1Ls and beyond. Basically which case from your 1L classes will you never forget.

Sorry 0Ls but you really can't have an opinion on this until you start law school.

[Flips88]

We didn't even read Palsgraf, though my professor didn't really cover proximate cause.

I picked Pennoyer because it's one of the most mind numbing cases to read first semester and then you learn later that it's absolutely worthless these days.

I will say my Ks prof loved Hawkins v. McGee and my Crim prof insists that the only case we should remember by name is Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.

[shoeshine]

We didn't even read Palsgraf, though my professor didn't really cover proximate cause.

I picked Pennoyer because it's one of the most mind numbing cases to read first semester and then you learn later that it's absolutely worthless these days.

No proximate cause?

[Guchster]

She's a stupid bitch who got flattened by a giant scale.

--ImageRemoved--


mirite?

[Flips88]

We didn't even read Palsgraf, though my professor didn't really cover proximate cause.

I picked Pennoyer because it's one of the most mind numbing cases to read first semester and then you learn later that it's absolutely worthless these days.

No proximate cause?

Yeah. We had the goofy torts prof. We did intentional torts, then negligence which was primarily broken down into (1) standard of care and (2) defenses, and then strict liability. We have an optional torts 2 class were I believe the other stuff is discussed more thoroughly

[jess]

.

[shoeshine]

I wonder how much me putting Palsgraf at the top of the list affected the voting?

[Guchster]

We didn't even read Palsgraf, though my professor didn't really cover proximate cause.

I picked Pennoyer because it's one of the most mind numbing cases to read first semester and then you learn later that it's absolutely worthless these days.

No proximate cause?

Yeah. We had the goofy torts prof. We did intentional torts, then negligence which was primarily broken down into (1) standard of care and (2) defenses, and then strict liability. We have an optional torts 2 class were I believe the other stuff is discussed more thoroughly

oh wow. that's weird. I hated proximate cause while I was learning it cuz I didn't understand the big picture. But I understand now why it's so important. It's helping a lot in crim law to, when we're discussing at what point do we draw the line for culpability when a defendant start a chain reaction that leads to some absurd outcome.

I think my life is all about the absence of proximate cause. I just blame things on people that remotely bother me/fuck my life up in super tangential ways, but from a logical/rational standpoint have nothing to do with any actual outcome (i.e., getting pissed at the walk symbol for making me wait across the street 2 extra minutes and hence making me miss the train and have to way 8 additional minutes for the next one, and thus making me miss two previews at the movies, which means i'm culturally unhipster for not knowing what's going on; FUCK YOU WALK SYMBOLS).

[Flips88]

We didn't even read Palsgraf, though my professor didn't really cover proximate cause.

I picked Pennoyer because it's one of the most mind numbing cases to read first semester and then you learn later that it's absolutely worthless these days.

No proximate cause?

Yeah. We had the goofy torts prof. We did intentional torts, then negligence which was primarily broken down into (1) standard of care and (2) defenses, and then strict liability. We have an optional torts 2 class were I believe the other stuff is discussed more thoroughly

oh wow. that's weird. .

Our professor also taught us multiple tort theories that I'm pretty sure only he thinks are good tort theories.

[beachbum]

As a 1L, I quickly learned to fear three things in 1L courses: proximate cause, Rule Against Perpetuities, and the Eerie Problem. I can't really remember a big case for RAP, and I haven't done proximate cause yet. But Eerie is definitely up there in terms of 1L cases.

I'll also give an honorable mention to the burned and hairy hand case (Hawkins) from Paperchase.

[ilovesf]

We went over Palsgraf, but then our professor said to never talk about it on a test because there was such a low chance that we would analyze it correctly that it would work against us. I don't even know why we went over it because we had a lot of other cases that described proximate cause. I'm pretty sure we only read it because it's famous, my teacher was new, and he was like let's just read the most popular cases and hope they'll cover everything important in this course.

[paulinaporizkova]

Erie for sure, God curse its name.

[20160810]

Marbury v. International Shoe, obviously

[LawMan20]

Haven't heard of/read any of them besides Marbury.

How is that possible?

I don't know, but apparently it is.

[Bildungsroman]

Haven't heard of/read any of them besides Marbury.

How is that possible?

I don't know, but apparently it is.

You're a 1L, right? I guess maybe you just didn't have property last semester. Or crim. Or torts. Or civ pro.

So I guess you had ... contracts and con law?

[Antilles Haven]

Haven't heard of/read any of them besides Marbury.

How is that possible?

I don't know, but apparently it is.

You're a 1L, right? I guess maybe you just didn't have property last semester. Or crim. Or torts. Or civ pro.

So I guess you had ... contracts and con law?

But no Hawkins... and those cases should be the very first ones he reads (usually) for this semester's classes.