How are your outlines looking? Forum

[GeePee]

Because most lawyers just look them up. Who cares if the rule says removal is legitimate only if a party removes 15 or 30 or 60 days after the case becomes removable, or whether appeal on double discretion is under rule 52(b) or 54(a) or 60(b), as long as you know such rules exist and that you should be cognizant of them while you practice?

Memorizing which rules tell you what is not necessary to understanding civil procedure.

Its not about memorizing the rules, its about how to interpret said rules. therein lies the key difference.

Right, and for the ones that require interpretation, you have caselaw. Therefore, there's really no need to know anything about FRCP other than they exist and you should check them when you're unsure.

[JazzOne]

My prof teaches the history of the rules. The rules have a huge impact on what kinds of litigation get to trial.

+1

Strategic use of the rules can mean the difference between getting your case tossed out at summary judgment and getting your case to a jury.

[seespotrun]

Because most lawyers just look them up. Who cares if the rule says removal is legitimate only if a party removes 15 or 30 or 60 days after the case becomes removable, or whether appeal on double discretion is under rule 52(b) or 54(a) or 60(b), as long as you know such rules exist and that you should be cognizant of them while you practice?

Memorizing which rules tell you what is not necessary to understanding civil procedure.

Its not about memorizing the rules, its about how to interpret said rules. therein lies the key difference.

Right, and for the ones that require interpretation, you have caselaw. Therefore, there's really no need to know anything about FRCP other than they exist and you should check them when you're unsure.

Worst post I've seen in a while. Congrats!

[20160810]

I have not done one word of outlining for any of my classes.

God I love 2L.

[RVP11]

God I love 2L.

[dakatz]

All my outlines are about a week behind right now. Not a huge amount of catchup, but I'm worried about falling too far behind with them due to our final memo assignment which we just got. Its so easy to feel like the slightest slip up will make the train completely fall of the rails. But I try and put it in perspective. Most people have just started outlining (at least from what I can infer from a small sample of classmates), and most people haven't gotten a chance to do any work with supplements or hypotheticals. So I guess I"m not as behind as I sometimes feel like I am.

[JazzOne]

I have not done one word of outlining for any of my classes.

God I love 2L.

+1

[RVP11]

This thread is now about how great it is to be a 2L with offer in hand.

[20160810]

This thread is now about how great it is to be a 2L with offer in hand.

I need to improve my class rank about 10% before clerkship applications, so I should be more worried, and I do intend to start the work this weekend, but I'm just not willing to freak out and stress about it the way I used to.

[JazzOne]

This thread is now about how great it is to be a 2L with offer in hand.

I took a final exam last week. I starting reading the material about a week before the test, and I didn't make any outline at all. The sad thing is, I still did better than 70% of the class.

[RVP11]

This thread is now about how great it is to be a 2L with offer in hand.

I took a final exam last week. I starting reading the material about a week before the test, and I didn't make any outline at all. The sad thing is, I still did better than 70% of the class.

This just goes to show how much your exam grades depend on your law school exam-taking ability and how comparatively little depends on how hard you grind. Also that you can learn an entire law school class in one week, if need be. Take note, 1Ls.

[GeePee]

Because most lawyers just look them up. Who cares if the rule says removal is legitimate only if a party removes 15 or 30 or 60 days after the case becomes removable, or whether appeal on double discretion is under rule 52(b) or 54(a) or 60(b), as long as you know such rules exist and that you should be cognizant of them while you practice?

Memorizing which rules tell you what is not necessary to understanding civil procedure.

Its not about memorizing the rules, its about how to interpret said rules. therein lies the key difference.

Right, and for the ones that require interpretation, you have caselaw. Therefore, there's really no need to know anything about FRCP other than they exist and you should check them when you're unsure.

Worst post I've seen in a while. Congrats!

I have a feeling I'm walking into some serious trolling here, but there is certainly a valid means of conveying Civil Procedure without a focus on the FRCP itself. The Rules are guided by and are designed to advance policy elements which have been discussed extensively in caselaw. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are perfect examples.

If you're calling my post "the worst" based upon separate considerations of statutory interpretation, then you're missing the original flow of the conversation that originated the post. I agree that these can be extremely important, but that goes outside the bounds of necessity in teaching civil procedure.

The point still stands: you can teach the concepts without specifically emphasizing the links to FRCP, and it will not result in a lesser understanding of civil procedure. Thanks for interjecting and going out of your way to be a dick, much appreciated.

[seespotrun]

Its not about memorizing the rules, its about how to interpret said rules. therein lies the key difference.

Right, and for the ones that require interpretation, you have caselaw. Therefore, there's really no need to know anything about FRCP other than they exist and you should check them when you're unsure.

Worst post I've seen in a while. Congrats!

I have a feeling I'm walking into some serious trolling here, but there is certainly a valid means of conveying Civil Procedure without a focus on the FRCP itself. The Rules are guided by and are designed to advance policy elements which have been discussed extensively in caselaw. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are perfect examples.

If you're calling my post "the worst" based upon separate considerations of statutory interpretation, then you're missing the original flow of the conversation that originated the post. I agree that these can be extremely important, but that goes outside the bounds of necessity in teaching civil procedure.

The point still stands: you can teach the concepts without specifically emphasizing the links to FRCP, and it will not result in a lesser understanding of civil procedure. Thanks for interjecting and going out of your way to be a dick, much appreciated.

No, your right. We should just take moral and legal philosophy courses that survey specific areas of the law. Screw the rules, man! As long as we know they exist, we can just look that stuff up when we practice.

[stayway]

LoL

[GeePee]

No, your right. We should just take moral and legal philosophy courses that survey specific areas of the law. Screw the rules, man! As long as we know they exist, we can just look that stuff up when we practice.

Facepalm. Now I can only hope that you're trolling after that twisting of words.

[beach_terror]

--ImageRemoved--

+

--ImageRemoved--

[BarbellDreams]

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you would be the bottom grade in my Civ Pro class. In fact, if you stated that the FRCP is just guided by case law and is nice to look at but not really a central part of anything I am pretty sure my prof would go to the admissions board and convince them that they made some mistake and need to get rid of you. No, I am not kidding.

[beach_terror]

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you would be the bottom grade in my Civ Pro class. In fact, if you stated that the FRCP is just guided by case law and is nice to look at but not really a central part of anything I am pretty sure my prof would go to the admissions board and convince them that they made some mistake and need to get rid of you. No, I am not kidding.

--ImageRemoved--

[09042014]

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you would be the bottom grade in my Civ Pro class. In fact, if you stated that the FRCP is just guided by case law and is nice to look at but not really a central part of anything I am pretty sure my prof would go to the admissions board and convince them that they made some mistake and need to get rid of you. No, I am not kidding.

His professor probably just teaches Civ Pro very differently.

[BarbellDreams]

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you would be the bottom grade in my Civ Pro class. In fact, if you stated that the FRCP is just guided by case law and is nice to look at but not really a central part of anything I am pretty sure my prof would go to the admissions board and convince them that they made some mistake and need to get rid of you. No, I am not kidding.

His professor probably just teaches Civ Pro very differently.

I get that, I have just never heard of a prof say that the FRCP are "nice to look at" but not really a big deal. Most cases use them in the freaking opinions so it seems like it would be hard to read them if you didnt know what they were, how they work together, or how to apply them. My prof said a quick test to see if you know what the hell is going on with the FRCP is to look at the PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the Piper Aircrafts case. If you can explain how the case was moved like 3 times for each of the two defendants you're in good shape.

[seespotrun]

No, your right. We should just take moral and legal philosophy courses that survey specific areas of the law. Screw the rules, man! As long as we know they exist, we can just look that stuff up when we practice.

Facepalm. Now I can only hope that you're trolling after that twisting of words.

Are you facepalming because you don't feel like responding to my obviously sarcastic restatement of your position, or because you're nearing the end of your first semester of law school, and you're still disillusioned about what a legal education is?

[beach_terror]

Sorry, I understand the point you're trying to make, but you would be the bottom grade in my Civ Pro class. In fact, if you stated that the FRCP is just guided by case law and is nice to look at but not really a central part of anything I am pretty sure my prof would go to the admissions board and convince them that they made some mistake and need to get rid of you. No, I am not kidding.

His professor probably just teaches Civ Pro very differently.

I get that, I have just never heard of a prof say that the FRCP are "nice to look at" but not really a big deal. Most cases use them in the freaking opinions so it seems like it would be hard to read them if you didnt know what they were, how they work together, or how to apply them. My prof said a quick test to see if you know what the hell is going on with the FRCP is to look at the PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the Piper Aircrafts case. If you can explain how the case was moved like 3 times for each of the two defendants you're in good shape.

I understand that fine, and at the time we didn't do anything with the FRCP.

Initial filing in CA state court -> removed to federal in CA -> transferred to PA (1404a because CA venue was proper) -> Hartzell moves for dismissal for lack of PJ (or transfer) -> CA district court transfers case to the Middle District of PA and Harztell is served in PA -> defendants move to dismiss for forum non conveniens (those sneaky bastards)

THE SUPER AWESOME LONG UNNECESSARY ARGUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ABOUT NOT NEEDING TO UNDERSTAND THE FRCP TO UNDERSTAND PERSONAL JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, REMOVAL, SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION, AND VENUE (WHICH SEEM TO BE THE CRUX OF 1L CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASSES, OR AT LEAST MINE) ... NOT THAT THE FRCP ARE UNIMPORTANT

[BarbellDreams]

Again, I guess DF has it right where some profs just dont teach it. My prof swears by it. Then again, my prof swears by dissents too for some reason.

[beach_terror]

12(b)(6) is far from straightforward if you've read Twombly/Iqbal. Same with attorney client privilege. Oh, and same with Rule 11 sanctions. All of those you have to refer to caselaw to determine what they mean, how to interpret them.

Yeah the straight forward comment was off-base. I'll plead guilty to fanning the flames.

[vamedic03]

The bolded was part of GeePee's point, that's choice of law and the Erie aftermath - which you can teach without the use of the FRCP. To decide if you use FRCP or state procedure, if there is a FRCP is on point - you use the rule because thats what the Supremacy Clause dictates. If there isn't, you look at outcome-determinative tests and decide if apply federal law will change the outcome of the case and if it does, then you should apply state law to discourage forum shopping.

FYI - You'd never use state procedure in a federal court.

FYI - This is not really a true statement. It depends on whether something is characterized as procedural versus substantive. Examples - statutes of limitations; choice of law; etc.