OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[Unagi]

what do you need? i have partial checklist that does not include damages... basically intent offer acceptance consid pre exist parole promissory ... etc.

Jsa, could you send it to me too?

[Pleasye]

what do you need? i have partial checklist that does not include damages... basically intent offer acceptance consid pre exist parole promissory ... etc.

Jsa, could you send it to me too?

[SportsFan]

what do you need? i have partial checklist that does not include damages... basically intent offer acceptance consid pre exist parole promissory ... etc.

Jsa, could you send it to me too?

[Jsa725]

.

[Nova]

Thx Jsa

heres my stash of OLs. Theyre great cause they are separated by text book. http://www.ilrg.com/students/outlines/

[swimmer11]

Is counteranalysis for torts: intentional torts/privileges negligence/defenses?
For crim law: crime/mitigation/defenses?

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

[Raiden]

Did a bunch of MC for K, hopefully that will stick...

Condensing property and memorizing it by rewriting...why do I feel like all I should be doing is straight up practice tests right now...

[minnbills]

Is counteranalysis for torts: intentional torts/privileges negligence/defenses?
For crim law: crime/mitigation/defenses?

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

I'm basically just raising a counterargument at every step.


Raiden, where did you get those K MCs? I've been having a hard time finding any.

[005618502]

I dont know whether I am jealous that you guys have some MC and I dont... or not. I could see those going either way lol

[005618502]

what do you need? i have partial checklist that does not include damages... basically intent offer acceptance consid pre exist parole promissory ... etc.

Jsa, could you send it to me too?

I am really sorry, but if you dont mind

[Pleasye]

I dont know whether I am jealous that you guys have some MC and I dont... or not. I could see those going either way lol

They're terrrriiibbbllleee for Ks. Be thankful you don't have them.

[swimmer11]

Is counteranalysis for torts: intentional torts/privileges negligence/defenses?
For crim law: crime/mitigation/defenses?

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

I'm basically just raising a counterargument at every step.


Raiden, where did you get those K MCs? I've been having a hard time finding any.

Care to elaborate a bit?

[Unagi]

Is counteranalysis for torts: intentional torts/privileges negligence/defenses?
For crim law: crime/mitigation/defenses?

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

I'm basically just raising a counterargument at every step.


Raiden, where did you get those K MCs? I've been having a hard time finding any.

Care to elaborate a bit?

I guess he means that you can make more counterarguments. When I went over an old exam with my torts professor she said that we should raise plausible counterarguments for each of the torts' elements (when possible) going against the prima facie case and then later move to affirmative defenses.

[swimmer11]

Thanks bro.

Do you just make counterarguments then for each of your elements for torts?

[ipsojure]

I wanted to pose a question if I could. My exam prep has gotten pretty derailed. I had a great study work ethic but due to some personal developments a lot of that was subverted towards the middle of November. Should I still be keeping up with the reading in class or just strictly studying off old outlines and doing practice problems/exams at this point?

[goaheadualright]

fd

[Birdnals]

Thanks bro.

Do you just make counterarguments then for each of your elements for torts?

Yeah, that is how my prof does it. I separate it like this:

A vs. B, Negligence

A Duty owed: A was in zone of danger of B's actions

B Duty owed: No duty owed to protect third parties

A What is duty: Reasonable person

B What is duty: Professional Standard, reasonable Dr.

etc.

If there are multiple parties I get them out of the way at the end (C would have generally the same arguments except she will argue the duty owed to her was through privity of contract between her and B...)

Basically every element gets a short plaintiff/ defense way of looking at the element.

[swimmer11]

Thanks bro.

Do you just make counterarguments then for each of your elements for torts?

Yeah, that is how my prof does it. I separate it like this:

A vs. B, Negligence

A Duty owed: A was in zone of danger of B's actions

B Duty owed: No duty owed to protect third parties

A What is duty: Reasonable person

B What is duty: Professional Standard, reasonable Dr.

etc.

If there are multiple parties I get them out of the way at the end (C would have generally the same arguments except she will argue the duty owed to her was through privity of contract between her and B...)

Basically every element gets a short plaintiff/ defense way of looking at the element.

Do you think this still applies to torts exams where you start at 0 and gain one point for each issue you spot? My TA, who aced the course, said she answered the final exam in bullet point style.

[Birdnals]

Yeah, that is how my prof does it. I separate it like this:

A vs. B, Negligence

A Duty owed: A was in zone of danger of B's actions

B Duty owed: No duty owed to protect third parties

A What is duty: Reasonable person

B What is duty: Professional Standard, reasonable Dr.

etc.

If there are multiple parties I get them out of the way at the end (C would have generally the same arguments except she will argue the duty owed to her was through privity of contract between her and B...)

Basically every element gets a short plaintiff/ defense way of looking at the element.

Do you think this still applies to torts exams where you start at 0 and gain one point for each issue you spot? My TA, who aced the course, said she answered the final exam in bullet point style.

Most issues will be in the elements. I personally think I spot more issues when I am forced to look at each element and think of something each side will argue for it, but to each their own.

ETA: and if you type up the elements "Plaintiff duty owed:, Defendant duty owed:" you can just copy and paste it for every negligence cause of action and fill in the arguments individually.

[LSL]

...

[minnbills]

So glad I go to a laid back and chill school. People trying to psyche each other out would be a nightmare.

[gaud]

So glad I go to a laid back and chill school. People trying to psyche each other out would be a nightmare.

amen

[LSL]

.

[swimmer11]

Today has been draining because of all the negativity from fellow classmates. The common complaints:

"God, I hate the way the professor taught this..."

"Everyone is so fucking stupid and they waste time asking (what I personally perceive to be) stupid questions"

"We were never told what to do about thing A or thing B"

"Why do the profs even assign reading so close to exams, we have shit to learn!"



Brothers and sisters, we are above this shit. CSWS. Rise above the negativity and keep your eye on the prize. If someone starts complaining, you start walking. If you're in class, start looking at your computer. Whether our classmates are playing head games trying to psyche you out with this or just genuinely panicked, keep it drama free. We will beat the law exams, and we will beat law school.

CSWS!!!

That is crazy man. Nobody is like that in my section. It seems like people do not even know finals are coming up.

[LSL]

...