Top Law Schools

It has helped me dramatically to read the casenotes legal briefs book keyed to my textbook before I read a case, especially if the case is lengthy. Reading that brief summary right before I read the case makes me much less likely to be confused or have to reread sentences or paragraphs to understand the judge. It also makes it easy to sift through the facts when they are complicated. This has been especially useful in Con Law.

I know it was suggested in the Success in Law School a Unique Perspective article, but I just thought I would share my own experience with it. No idea if this will help my grades but it has definitely saved me time and frustration.

I agree with this tip.

However, I personally feel struggling with a case is part of the learning process in law school. While the final exam's hypothetical likely won't be as difficult as Pennoyer, I don't want to be so used to relying on case briefs that I forget how to analyze and interpret a case on my own.

I love my Casenotes book for Crim, but I use it after I read to check understanding.

Being able to decipher a case and what they are saying is a rather important skill.

Sometimes I read the case summary before the case, sometimes after. I'm starting to like reading the case summary after reading the case (unless the case is very long).

Gamecubesupreme wrote:I agree with this tip.

However, I personally feel struggling with a case is part of the learning process in law school. While the final exam's hypothetical likely won't be as difficult as Pennoyer, I don't want to be so used to relying on case briefs that I forget how to analyze and interpret a case on my own.

Meh... Fact patterns on exams, nor in real life, are written in old 19th century arcane language. What learning process can be derived from wasting time on deciphering what "a trespass on the court" blah blah blah means. I guess if you aspire to be involved in academia, then sure... knock yourself out... otherwise, you're wasting your time (in regards to reading cases from 1890's w/o a brief).

Just a quick warning, while they are usually good about the majority opinion, the summary of the concurring and dissenting opinions are often just flat out wrong so dont rely exlusively on the casenotes. They often summarize the concurring opinions and the diseenting opinions using arguments never mentioned in the casebook. I'm sure the justices said these things in the actual opinion, but they are not in the casebook itself.

dont mean to be obnoxious but I think the biggest time saving tip for case reading comes before you ever start law school: be a philosophy major.

I honestly think my undergrad major has made this a non-issue and Im SO grateful for it because god knows, I have 8237849732 other issues in law school and didn't need this extra one. Philosophy books are pretty parallel to case analysis in a way. They are dense, they analayze back and forth on issues, arguing each side, and are usually building little blocks of an argument throughout the text and eventually have one (or more) main point/"rule" to get across. If you learn how to read/study philosophy books, you pretty much learn how to read cases effectively.

So yeah..I guess thats a tip for those not *in* law school yet, but just thought Id share

acdisagod wrote:Just a quick warning, while they are usually good about the majority opinion, the summary of the concurring and dissenting opinions are often just flat out wrong so dont rely exlusively on the casenotes. They often summarize the concurring opinions and the diseenting opinions using arguments never mentioned in the casebook. I'm sure the justices said these things in the actual opinion, but they are not in the casebook itself.

I've not found this to be the case at all with my Casenotes book keyed to my textbook. It's pretty awesome.

kalvano wrote:

acdisagod wrote:Just a quick warning, while they are usually good about the majority opinion, the summary of the concurring and dissenting opinions are often just flat out wrong so dont rely exlusively on the casenotes. They often summarize the concurring opinions and the diseenting opinions using arguments never mentioned in the casebook. I'm sure the justices said these things in the actual opinion, but they are not in the casebook itself.

I've not found this to be the case at all with my Casenotes book keyed to my textbook. It's pretty awesome.

Its probably an issue with the casebook giving you an edited/paired down version of the concurring/dissent and the supp giving you the full gamut of the arguments.

I read the cases at night and try to understand them, but if it's taking too long to get to a "full" understanding I usually just leave it alone and let the professor explain it in class rather than keep at it. Anyone else do something similar?

Blindmelon wrote:

kalvano wrote:

acdisagod wrote:Just a quick warning, while they are usually good about the majority opinion, the summary of the concurring and dissenting opinions are often just flat out wrong so dont rely exlusively on the casenotes. They often summarize the concurring opinions and the diseenting opinions using arguments never mentioned in the casebook. I'm sure the justices said these things in the actual opinion, but they are not in the casebook itself.

I've not found this to be the case at all with my Casenotes book keyed to my textbook. It's pretty awesome.

Its probably an issue with the casebook giving you an edited/paired down version of the concurring/dissent and the supp giving you the full gamut of the arguments.

No, I don't have any issues. My Casenotes book tracks perfectly with my textbook.

I was referring to acdisagod's issue.

Blindmelon wrote:I was referring to acdisagod's issue.

Ah. Well.

Carry on then.

acdisagod wrote:Just a quick warning, while they are usually good about the majority opinion, the summary of the concurring and dissenting opinions are often just flat out wrong so dont rely exlusively on the casenotes. They often summarize the concurring opinions and the diseenting opinions using arguments never mentioned in the casebook. I'm sure the justices said these things in the actual opinion, but they are not in the casebook itself.

So true... for me, the dissent is not only the best part, but it also clarifies the rule and reasoning.

Not that I'd recommend doing things this way, per se, but I frequently used Casenotes in lieu of the actual reading. Sometimes this allowed me to quote-unquote get all of my reading done in about an hour a week. They're an incredibly good resource.

i have to share a gem... i've discovered these restaurant-like places that make pre-made meals... so all you have to do is heat those fuckers up and toss the container. that or the hotfood bar at whole foods. no cooking and less dishes saves tons of time.

Got my highest grade in ConLaw doing this. Definitely read the cases and pay attention in class, but this supplement, especially in ebook form, is gold for outlining/exams.