Top Law Schools

In many of the cases I've read so far, the opinion writer will include something along the lines of "this court has previously ruled that __________ (see UCC-section 2a and 2b)" or "this principle of reasoning is evident in __________ (see restatement of tort law section 3i and 4j)." Okay, so obviously I made those examples up, but certainly you see what I'm getting at - courts are always making references to statutes that aren't really essential to the holding. Are these "nonessential" statutes going to be on the exam? Should I look them up (e.g. in the restatement) and include the relevant statute in my outline? Thanks for any advice.

It depends on what the purpose of you reading the case is. If the statute and the court's interreptation of it is, then you should know it. If you are reading the case for another reason, then no.

spanktheduck wrote:It depends on what the purpose of you reading the case is. If the statute and the court's interreptation of it is, then you should know it. If you are reading the case for another reason, then no.

This. If you are reading United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, no one gives a shit about the Labor Management Relations Act.

For writing assignments it seems to be somewhat important. Not so much for just regular reading assignments. From what I can tell so far, and what upperclassmen have led me to understand at least.