Top Law Schools

anyone have any tips for how
1. to flesh out the most points possible on an issue spotter and/or fact heavy question?

2. know when you are going to far to find issues that are not really issues?

3. identify the issues that may or may not be relevant but yet still can get you points if you mention it?

4. any other helpful advice, or maybe someone else can ask more questions related to this that I can't think of right now

GoodToBeTheKing wrote:anyone have any tips for how
1. to flesh out the most points possible on an issue spotter and/or fact heavy question?

2. know when you are going to far to find issues that are not really issues?

3. identify the issues that may or may not be relevant but yet still can get you points if you mention it?

4. any other helpful advice, or maybe someone else can ask more questions related to this that I can't think of right now

If your professors haven't told you this kind of stuff yet, ask them. There's no blanket answer to this question because it's entirely nonuniform.

Being that I am a 1L I can only tell you what worked for me on the 1 graded midterm I had, though I did get the highest grade in my section...Look deep into the fact patter and read between the lines, b/c there are issues there that you won't see, like the ability to sue another party, or another party having liability against your imaginary client through seemingly inadvertant means. Be very thorough when explaining rules, think of it as though you are explaining rules to a friend with no legal background. Argue both sides, and break up arguments into paragraphs.

1L disclaimer as well, but as I sit here and outline personal jurisdiction I can see how you can gain some of those "fringe" points in the long-arm statute analysis. We spent one day on it in class, as opposed to like 3 weeks of constitutional analysis - but I'm pretty damn sure that some points can be gained in a solid analysis of the long arm part of the PJ tests. The bulk of the points will still be in the constitutional portion of the answer though.

In short, everyone's going to rock the shit out of the main topics... but hopefully not everyone bothers to thoroughly understand every topic gone over in class... because a lot seem unimportant in the big picture (it did to me until just now).

What was said above is a very good point. Everyone i going to rock the main points. No one is going to forget consideration in Contracts or the elements of negligence in torts or mens rea in Crim. Where people seperate themselves is finding smaller issues as well as good analysis of the larger issues and how they can be argued. There is ALWAYS an argument that can be made for either side. Even if advertisements are rarely offers one can make a weak argument that one was an offer because it somehow limited the mutual assent problems with its wording. Showing you understand how varying degrees of murder and manslaughter can be argued and what each attorney would say to push it in the direction that is favorable.

Hell, when all else fails our professors said just write as much as you can on the subject. Its not going to be an A exam by any means but you might get away with a B+.