Top Law Schools

My torts professor wrote the casebook and makes his opinions clear, particularly when he disagrees with a holding and/or part of the rule--->how would one work this into exam questions? In analyzing the outcome of x hypothetical, obviously you would use the rules and apply them to the facts, but then how do you work in your professor's point of view, if his p.o.v would result in the opposite outcome?

It's not about outcomes; it's about reasons for outcomes. The meatiest questions on the exams won't have clear outcomes, and you'll receive points for recognizing that and discussing what makes it unclear/what strong arguments exist on both sides. You'd bring up your professor's viewpoint as one consideration/argument.

spondee wrote:It's not about outcomes; it's about reasons for outcomes. The meatiest questions on the exams won't have clear outcomes, and you'll receive points for recognizing that and discussing what makes it unclear/what strong arguments exist on both sides. You'd bring up your professor's viewpoint as one consideration/argument.

... and then destroy it.

If your prof has an opinion about a legal result in a particular factual situation, that opinion will either oppose or support the result. So, if an analogous factual situation comes up in an exam, argue for the original case to control and then call the strongest argument for/against that legal result whatever your prof's argument was.

Simple: By working in virtually nothing else.