Why shouldn't cases be briefed? Forum

[pancakes3]

I, as a stupid 1L, can't make heads or tails of Torts without procedural history.

[Mal Reynolds]

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

Holy shit I hate you scotusnerd.

[BigZuck]

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.

This is flame, yes?

[A. Nony Mouse]

God I hope so.

(Also, professors don't decide what to address in class based on one student's ridiculous comments/questions.)

[sf_39]

Like everything in LS, it varies by your professor. I had some professors who said facts of cases don't matter. I never briefed (and mostly didn't even read) a case in those classes. I had one prof who said case illustrations/comparisons were important to get points. I did 1-2 lines of facts and holdings in that class.

LS is a test of your efficiency skills and how well you adjust to different situations. General TLS knowledge is briefing is mostly not helpful. I agree with that, but it depends.

[dudley12]

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

Holy shit I hate you scotusnerd.

tbf I think he's just agreeing that it's lame to spend a lot of time talking about procedural history/other useless facts of a case in upper level courses. for a 1L though I think procedural history and getting the facts straight are useful, yet for 3L's it's just like...are you fucking serious?

[whats an updog]

1L at T14 school right now and the reason I have been briefing all my cases, and rereading shit probably 3 times is because everyone seems to understand things so much better than I do. In class, people remember minute facts about every case and it's not an issue of gunners, it's just everyone. Not only that, but they seem to more quickly understand the point and more quickly make connections. It's not that I care about being cold called, it's that I don't remember shit about a case or what the casebook is trying to say about it unless I've briefed it and read it a couple times. My section mates are certainly exceptionally smart people, and the only way I know how to build my own confidence is to work hard.

[McAvoy]

1L at T14 school right now and the reason I have been briefing all my cases, and rereading shit probably 3 times is because everyone seems to understand things so much better than I do. In class, people remember minute facts about every case and it's not an issue of gunners, it's just everyone. Not only that, but they seem to more quickly understand the point and more quickly make connections. It's not that I care about being cold called, it's that I don't remember shit about a case or what the casebook is trying to say about it unless I've briefed it and read it a couple times. My section mates are certainly exceptionally smart people, and the only way I know how to build my own confidence is to work hard.

Rule #1 of law school: ignore what other people are doing and saying. It doesn't matter. Figure out what works for you.

[BigZuck]

1L at T14 school right now and the reason I have been briefing all my cases, and rereading shit probably 3 times is because everyone seems to understand things so much better than I do. In class, people remember minute facts about every case and it's not an issue of gunners, it's just everyone. Not only that, but they seem to more quickly understand the point and more quickly make connections. It's not that I care about being cold called, it's that I don't remember shit about a case or what the casebook is trying to say about it unless I've briefed it and read it a couple times. My section mates are certainly exceptionally smart people, and the only way I know how to build my own confidence is to work hard.

Same with me, I suck at cold calls/remembering stuff from cases even if I have a brief in front of me. Didn't affect my GPA at all. Or, if it did, not enough for it to really impact my employment prospects.

You definitely gotta do you but not being able to perform when called on in class doesn't necessarily mean anything for your final grade.

[hephaestus]

1L at T14 school right now and the reason I have been briefing all my cases, and rereading shit probably 3 times is because everyone seems to understand things so much better than I do. In class, people remember minute facts about every case and it's not an issue of gunners, it's just everyone. Not only that, but they seem to more quickly understand the point and more quickly make connections. It's not that I care about being cold called, it's that I don't remember shit about a case or what the casebook is trying to say about it unless I've briefed it and read it a couple times. My section mates are certainly exceptionally smart people, and the only way I know how to build my own confidence is to work hard.

Rule #1 of law school: ignore what other people are doing and saying. It doesn't matter. Figure out what works for you.

This. Brief if it works for you, don't if it doesn't. Also there is absolutely no need to remember minute details in cases.

[Attax]

1L at T14 school right now and the reason I have been briefing all my cases, and rereading shit probably 3 times is because everyone seems to understand things so much better than I do. In class, people remember minute facts about every case and it's not an issue of gunners, it's just everyone. Not only that, but they seem to more quickly understand the point and more quickly make connections. It's not that I care about being cold called, it's that I don't remember shit about a case or what the casebook is trying to say about it unless I've briefed it and read it a couple times. My section mates are certainly exceptionally smart people, and the only way I know how to build my own confidence is to work hard.

You do you, but quite frankly it seems as if those people who are busy trying to impress during cold calls often, at least in my classes, are missing the bigger picture of things such as what the rule is and why the prof may think it is good/bad and why. I'm still just a 1L but this seems way more valuable than remembering minute facts.

[Scotusnerd]

I'm a 3L. I momentarily forgot I was talking to hysterical 1Ls and thought I could share a war story. Let me break my alleged asshattery down for you so you can understand my viewpoint instead of shaking your fist at me.

For 2Ls/3Ls, procedural history is mostly boring and a waste of time. I don't care about whether a state court has collateral appeals that coincide with the normal appellate process or a separate post-conviction relief, or that they had to remand the case for further factual findings. I also don't care about concurrences/dissents from over 30 years ago. I can read. Exceptions to this policy include taking a class in an area you're unfamilliar with, such as the first time you deal with tax matters or bankruptcy. They also include classes on appellate law.

For 1Ls, procedural history is useful. Right now you should learn how to do it so you can sort out the crap from the good stuff. There's a lot going on in these cases, more than you realize. Any case you read is going to involve at least three discrete sets of rules: appellate rules, rules of evidence, and the substantive law. They may also include multiple levels of substantive law from differing jurisdictions with differing effects on the outcome. Your job as a law student is to figure out how to distinguish them from each other so you can pick out the parts of the case you need and effectively use them. And make no mistake, this is a tough skill to learn. It takes about a year and a bit of real world experience to start getting decent at it, and it will be horribly frustrating at first. Man up and learn it. It's the number one thing that separates lawyers from nonlawyers.

Oh, and just to be clear, there's a legitimate reason I hate professors burbling on about that besides what I outlined above. I've worked in appellate law. Your professors may be highly paid, but they are not appellate lawyers, and they don't know appellate law.* They're basically the equivalent of four-year-olds with crayons in a room full of art students. Appellate law has a lot of procedural aspects to it that don't fit this bright lines professors give you. Each type of appeal has a different manner for raising the claim that affects the eventual outcome, and at least two different bodies of law surrounding it. There is an entire field of landmines for unwary wanderers in appellate law. Professors goof these up a lot, and that bothers me because we're training to be lawyers, not theorists. If I goofed a procedural rule like some of my professors have done,** someone's life could have been destroyed.

Hopefully that'll makes some sense. Any questions?

*The professors that do teach appellate law will agree with me about this, as they've spent time in the field and know this stuff and how dangerous it is.
**And my bosses don't catch it, which happens more often than you'd guess.

[sideroxylon]

I am also a 3L Scotusnerd.

I also don't like it when professors ramble about meaningless things.

But, I like it far far less when some self-appointed asshat runs roughshod over the class by interrupting with pointless questions and treat others (even professors) with disdain.

So, Scotusnerd, ALL POWERFUL 3L with knowledge of appellate law—what exactly did you do for "appellate law" and why should even a shitty professor respect you? I know that there are some legitimately smart people on TLS, but I've never thought you belonged in that category and your posts ITT are kinda sealing it for me.

Moreover, what do you mean by professors who teach "appellate law?" Given that pretty much everything is taught through appellate decisions, how would this class differ?

Beyond that, let's say you're right for a second and they're missing something that's important for the GLORIOUS FIELD OF APPELLATE LAW—most of your peers will not be doing that type of work. Even at Yale, a majority of students are not CoA clerks, and a CoA clerkship is required to do real appellate work at most PREFTIGIOUS firms.

In short, I think you're trying to make yourself sound smart, both here and IRL. Sadly, you're not smart, and, even if by some small miracle you're not an idiot, you're demonstrating some piss-poor social skills.

Grow up, keep your hand down in class, and let the poor professors burble.

[sideroxylon]

I'm a 3L. I momentarily forgot I was talking to hysterical 1Ls and thought I could share a war story. Let me break my alleged asshattery down for you so you can understand my viewpoint instead of shaking your fist at me.

For 2Ls/3Ls, procedural history is mostly boring and a waste of time. I don't care about whether a state court has collateral appeals that coincide with the normal appellate process or a separate post-conviction relief, or that they had to remand the case for further factual findings. I also don't care about concurrences/dissents from over 30 years ago. I can read. Exceptions to this policy include taking a class in an area you're unfamilliar with, such as the first time you deal with tax matters or bankruptcy. They also include classes on appellate law.

For 1Ls, procedural history is useful. Right now you should learn how to do it so you can sort out the crap from the good stuff. There's a lot going on in these cases, more than you realize. Any case you read is going to involve at least three discrete sets of rules: appellate rules, rules of evidence, and the substantive law. They may also include multiple levels of substantive law from differing jurisdictions with differing effects on the outcome. Your job as a law student is to figure out how to distinguish them from each other so you can pick out the parts of the case you need and effectively use them. And make no mistake, this is a tough skill to learn. It takes about a year and a bit of real world experience to start getting decent at it, and it will be horribly frustrating at first. Man up and learn it. It's the number one thing that separates lawyers from nonlawyers.

Oh, and just to be clear, there's a legitimate reason I hate professors burbling on about that besides what I outlined above. I've worked in appellate law. Your professors may be highly paid, but they are not appellate lawyers, and they don't know appellate law.* They're basically the equivalent of four-year-olds with crayons in a room full of art students. Appellate law has a lot of procedural aspects to it that don't fit this bright lines professors give you. Each type of appeal has a different manner for raising the claim that affects the eventual outcome, and at least two different bodies of law surrounding it. There is an entire field of landmines for unwary wanderers in appellate law. Professors goof these up a lot, and that bothers me because we're training to be lawyers, not theorists. If I goofed a procedural rule like some of my professors have done,** someone's life could have been destroyed.

Hopefully that'll makes some sense. Any questions?

*The professors that do teach appellate law will agree with me about this, as they've spent time in the field and know this stuff and how dangerous it is.
**And my bosses don't catch it, which happens more often than you'd guess.

also QFP this is gold and can't be lost

[sideroxylon]

i mean, i guess we should all cower at the intelligence and prowess of someone who is in the top quarter of The University of South Carolina School of Law

real heavy-hitter, academically speaking

assuredly smarter than the professor

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean, I am a lawyer (lol like that means anything, but I'm not a hysterical 1L), and I've done appellate work, and I still don't get what scotusnerd is flipping out about. There are a shitload of profs out there who've done COA clerkships who, I promise, get how appellate review and procedural posture work. And in about 99.9% of cases you read in 1L, procedural posture is basically irrelevant (what does procedural posture have to do with proximate cause or consideration or so on? we never discussed it). So I can only imagine scotusnerd nattering on with his pointed questions, and everyone else in the room rolling their eyes.

[BigZuck]

I mean, if you want to call Mal and I hysterical 1L's that's totally fair, our opinions don't matter. But when the Mouse tells you you're being an asshat, if you have to acknowledge that you really are being an asshat.

Just keep your hand down dude, nobody cares. And in fact, they hate you for it.

[Scotusnerd]

I mean, if you want to call Mal and I hysterical 1L's that's totally fair, our opinions don't matter. But when the Mouse tells you you're being an asshat, if you have to acknowledge that you really are being an asshat.

Just keep your hand down dude, nobody cares. And in fact, they hate you for it.

You're psychic and know what my classmates think? Why aren't you trading stocks?

I mean, I am a lawyer (lol like that means anything, but I'm not a hysterical 1L), and I've done appellate work, and I still don't get what scotusnerd is flipping out about. There are a shitload of profs out there who've done COA clerkships who, I promise, get how appellate review and procedural posture work. And in about 99.9% of cases you read in 1L, procedural posture is basically irrelevant (what does procedural posture have to do with proximate cause or consideration or so on? we never discussed it). So I can only imagine scotusnerd nattering on with his pointed questions, and everyone else in the room rolling their eyes.

I ain't flipping out over anything. It just bothers me when professors try to bullshit. The professor in question was known for wanting to reenact the paper chase and had just cold-called a bunch of 3Ls before I started asking the questions. I got thanked for it afterwards. He was trying to be an asshat, so I was a bigger asshat back. And yes you're right in that it's generally an asshole thing to do, but the circumstances warranted it. But hey, if you still want to think I'm an asshole, go for it. OP wanted advice and I shared some experience. If you don't like it, deal with it.

i mean, i guess we should all cower at the intelligence and prowess of someone who is in the top quarter of the university of south carolina school of law

real heavy-hitter, academically speaking

assuredly smarter than the professor

Law's not about brains, it's about work. If you haven't figured that out yet, you will learn it when some guy from a "TTT" mops the floor with you because you had your nose stuck up in the air and thought you were smarter than everyone else.

[BigZuck]

I can say with 100% confidence that no one wants a scotus nerd spouting off in class. Your fellow gunners are annoyed that you have the floor and everyone else just thinks you're a toolbag.

100% confidence my bro.

0Ls and 1Ls: keep your head down and your hand down. Do the work and go home. Have some fun, crush the exam. That's all you have to do in law school. If briefing cases helps you have fun (lol) or crush the exam (doubtful, but maybe) then by all means do it.

[pancakes3]

Best piece of advice so far about law school (I think it was TLS) was "If the first words out of your mouth are going to be 'But what about...' then put your fucking hand down."

[cron1834]

All 3 of my doctrinal profs this term were SCOTUS clerks. I haven't been doing shit for briefing, but if they tell me something is significant for appellate procedure, I'm just gonna jot it down and move on. Lol at South Carolina bro.

[Mal Reynolds]

Scotusnerd you sound like an insufferable asshole.

[Scotusnerd]

All 3 of my doctrinal profs this term were SCOTUS clerks. I haven't been doing shit for briefing, but if they tell me something is significant for appellate procedure, I'm just gonna jot it down and move on. Lol at South Carolina bro.

I wouldn't do that to those guys. You guys are funny, but I'd rather OP actually get advice than this chimp brigade. I'll stop posting so he can get some decent advice.

[cron1834]

SCOTUS, where did your profs go to school? What's their background? I can imagine some duds at a LEGIT TTT, but given the toughness of the market for academia, I have a hard time imagining that T1/T2 profs are quite so stupid.

[sideroxylon]

Law's not about brains, it's about work. If you haven't figured that out yet, you will learn it when some guy from a "TTT" mops the floor with you because you had your nose stuck up in the air and thought you were smarter than everyone else.

if someone from a TTT is staffed opposite me on a matter that I'm working on, I'm going to assume that they killed it (n.b., top quarter isn't killing it) and I'm going to assume they're pretty darn smart and they worked hard

you still haven't explained what you mean by "appellate work" (you get that for what most of us consider appellate work you must have done a CoA clerkship, something we know you haven't done) and haven't explained why you think you're smarter than your professors

i'm sorry it hurts your tiny pink ego to learn that there are people who are much much smarter than you (including your professors) but you should quit before you dig yourself deeper