Top Law Schools

I dont get it :-/

like..none of it. I am so far removed from understanding it that I cant even tell you what I dont understand about it.

We are covering jursidiction right now--read pennoyer v neff and then international shoe-->my thoughts thus far are that international shoe being the more recent ruling will be the one that applies (?) and it has the minimum contact test--and that once that has been established, the court can then take other things into consideration (such as unreasonableness of expecting defendant to travel to x place for trial, etc.)...everything after that is a big giant blur. in res jurisdiction? in personam? then the casebook says something abt international shoe dealing with corporations but what abt individuals? I really feel like I get NOTHING of this.

oh, and then theres the reading in our rule book that has absolutely nothing to do with the cases we're reading..? We are to read rules 1-3, 12. 1-3 were fine, 12 is like I dont know why I cant understand what the hell this is about. it just keeps talking about ppl responding to one another?

goosey wrote:I dont get it :-/

like..none of it. I am so far removed from understanding it that I cant even tell you what I dont understand about it.

We are covering jursidiction right now--read pennoyer v neff and then international shoe-->my thoughts thus far are that international shoe being the more recent ruling will be the one that applies (?) and it has the minimum contact test--and that once that has been established, the court can then take other things into consideration (such as unreasonableness of expecting defendant to travel to x place for trial, etc.)...everything after that is a big giant blur. in res jurisdiction? in personam? then the casebook says something abt international shoe dealing with corporations but what abt individuals? I really feel like I get NOTHING of this.

oh, and then theres the reading in our rule book that has absolutely nothing to do with the cases we're reading..? We are to read rules 1-3, 12. 1-3 were fine, 12 is like I dont know why I cant understand what the hell this is about. it just keeps talking about ppl responding to one another?

i would read the civ pro e&e. or read it much later. honestly, civ pro didn't make sense until about 80% into it for me.

edit: also, maybe check out an exam response. i can almost assure you that pj/smj/venue will be on your exam.

joobacca wrote:

goosey wrote:I dont get it :-/

like..none of it. I am so far removed from understanding it that I cant even tell you what I dont understand about it.

We are covering jursidiction right now--read pennoyer v neff and then international shoe-->my thoughts thus far are that international shoe being the more recent ruling will be the one that applies (?) and it has the minimum contact test--and that once that has been established, the court can then take other things into consideration (such as unreasonableness of expecting defendant to travel to x place for trial, etc.)...everything after that is a big giant blur. in res jurisdiction? in personam? then the casebook says something abt international shoe dealing with corporations but what abt individuals? I really feel like I get NOTHING of this.

oh, and then theres the reading in our rule book that has absolutely nothing to do with the cases we're reading..? We are to read rules 1-3, 12. 1-3 were fine, 12 is like I dont know why I cant understand what the hell this is about. it just keeps talking about ppl responding to one another?

i would read the civ pro e&e. or read it much later. honestly, civ pro didn't make sense until about 80% into it for me.

edit: also, maybe check out an exam response. i can almost assure you that pj/smj/venue will be on your exam.

I read chapter 1 of e&e which is probably why I even get the minimum contact rule..

On second thought, E&E will be way way way more helpful than the PJ section of my outline.

OP,

Read rule 12(b)(6). That's the cool one. Failure to state a claim. Hahahahahah

Seriously though, give it a few weeks before you freak out.

i think you are on the right track. the pennoyer v. neff case was very hard for me to put my head around all the policy issues that fields tried to address, but I got the gist of it. I think if you can find the rule and its rationale you will be ok.

you can also just always get the EEs, hornbook, and or look it up on lexisnexis

actually, I would highly recommend picking up a cheap, used copy of the civ pro horn book. it is pretty easy to understand.

also, if you have a barbri account (or know of a friend who does) then watch the video by the dude (freer?). but man, i gotta say, that it's way early. i wouldn't try to put shit together until much much later.

OP,

All these landmark cases have wikipedia articles. Honestly, Google is your friend in LS. Google everything that confuses you before you ask a stupid question about it.

Not saying that your question is stupid. I'm just saying that you will avoid stupid questions if you consult the simplest sources before raising your hand in class.

Thanks for the advice everyone...


yeah I was hesitant to wiki anything because its not always so reliable, but I guess I will see if that helps at all. I dont think my issue is not understanding the cases so much as just not understanding how it all fits together.

goosey wrote:Thanks for the advice everyone...


yeah I was hesitant to wiki anything because its not always so reliable, but I guess I will see if that helps at all. I dont think my issue is not understanding the cases so much as just not understanding how it all fits together.

If you don't trust wikipedia, try the Lexis case brief. However, I think wiki and Google give more helpful analyses of the landmark cases.

Civ Pro more than any other class is the one that takes a loooooooong time to "get." I got an A+ and an A in our two Civ Pro semesters last year and I can honestly say that I didn't understand 85% of what was talked about over the course of the semester. The cases are often needlessly complicated, which doesn't help anything, and the concepts mean nothing until you've seen them applied over and over again.

Long story short: Hang in there. Get to know the E&E and the CALI lessons. You'll be fine.

BobSacamano wrote:Civ Pro more than any other class is the one that takes a loooooooong time to "get." I got an A+ and an A in our two Civ Pro semesters last year and I can honestly say that I didn't understand 85% of what was talked about over the course of the semester. The cases are often needlessly complicated, which doesn't help anything, and the concepts mean nothing until you've seen them applied over and over again.

Long story short: Hang in there. Get to know the E&E and the CALI lessons. You'll be fine.

thanks, that makes me feel better. Should I do the CALI lessons as we go through the material or wait until its all done?

Confusion is healthy and par for the course. Don't try to pin it down too much, especially not at this point.

My cliffnotes understanding....

Pennoyer is not good law anymore, just in casebooks to explain how the law has evolved. International Shoe is the binding precedent in most jurisdictions. You were on the right track I think and I would add that Glannon's E&E is pretty awesome and helped break that and the jurisdiction questions down a lot.

kaydish21 wrote:My cliffnotes understanding....

Pennoyer is not good law anymore, just in casebooks to explain how the law has evolved. International Shoe is the binding precedent in most jurisdictions. You were on the right track I think and I would add that Glannon's E&E is pretty awesome and helped break that and the jurisdiction questions down a lot.

Quick substantive reply:

1) It is 99% accurate to say that Pennoyer is irrelevant and completely overruled. Technically it still established some principles of law that remain, but by and large it's done and gone and largely thrown in to confuse new law students.

2) International Shoe was decided by the United States Supreme Court and has not been overruled; as such it is binding precedent on all American federal courts.

3) Yeah, the E&E for civ pro is sweet. There are other good supplements out there, but it has to come highly recommended for a reason.

disco_barred wrote:

kaydish21 wrote:My cliffnotes understanding....

Pennoyer is not good law anymore, just in casebooks to explain how the law has evolved. International Shoe is the binding precedent in most jurisdictions. You were on the right track I think and I would add that Glannon's E&E is pretty awesome and helped break that and the jurisdiction questions down a lot.

Quick substantive reply:

1) It is 99% accurate to say that Pennoyer is irrelevant and completely overruled. Technically it still established some principles of law that remain, but by and large it's done and gone and largely thrown in to confuse new law students.

2) International Shoe was decided by the United States Supreme Court and has not been overruled; as such it is binding precedent on all American federal courts.

3) Yeah, the E&E for civ pro is sweet. There are other good supplements out there, but it has to come highly recommended for a reason.

Glad I found this out, I freaked when I saw that Pennoyer was just simply mention in passing in the E&E, and my teacher has gone through the first week talking about it.

I find Freer's book more useful than the E&E. But I do enjoy the subject, so I don't mind reading about it in a narrative style. YMMV.

I'm not sure if this will help anyone, but procedure is kind of like an operating system. You'll be using it for a very long time and you have to understand it so you can hack.

Duralex wrote:I find Freer's book more useful than the E&E. But I do enjoy the subject, so I don't mind reading about it in a narrative style. YMMV.

I'm not sure if this will help anyone, but procedure is kind of like an operating system. You'll be using it for a very long time and you have to understand it so you can hack.

wohoo! Freer it's totally at my school, his treatise is baller.

goosey wrote:I dont think my issue is not understanding the cases so much as just not understanding how it all fits together.

For me, thinking about it from a practitioner's perspective helped a lot. What you are being taught through this whole line of cases is that, if you (as a lawyer) want to sue someone, you must show the court that three things exist in order to get the court to even look at your lawsuit: jurisdiction, venue and notice. Each case you read is teaching you - as the practitioner - one potential way to show that one of those things is satisfied. Want to sue a corporation in Nevada? Well, now you know you can use International Shoe to establish jurisdiction. Want to sue some dude in Hawaii? Burnham tells you that you can catch him in Maui on a vacation, serve his ass, and then get him haled in to court. Each case is a weapon for you, the lawyer, to use to impose your will on someone else using the legal system.

HTH.

skoobily doobily wrote:

Duralex wrote:I find Freer's book more useful than the E&E. But I do enjoy the subject, so I don't mind reading about it in a narrative style. YMMV.

I'm not sure if this will help anyone, but procedure is kind of like an operating system. You'll be using it for a very long time and you have to understand it so you can hack.

wohoo! Freer it's totally at my school, his treatise is baller.

+1, I was also feeling ridiculously lost in CivPro, but I just started the hornbook and it's definitely making me hate the subject a lot less. He goes over the cases, explains their significance, explains how they all fit together, and gives you multiple hypos and answers so you know if you're getting it as you read along. I seriously can't recommend this book enough. The E&E looks awesome too, but for now I think I kind of prefer the structure of Freer's book.

.