Glannon's CivPro E&E Forum

[daesonesb]

Hey all. I have a teacher who has specifically mentioned that we should not use the Glannon E&E. Says that it is too basic, and will lead to sub par exam answers.

I have been using the E&E, and find it lays the issues out quite well... so this confuses me. Do you think this is a case of the professor taking for granted how little we know, or should I follow her advice?

[mbusch22]

Maybe she meant dont solely rely on the EE. I'd still use it to supplement your class notes and reading, and quiz yourself with the examples though. Just remember what she says in class trumps all. IMO.

[Gatriel]

E&E is a godsend. I wouldn't rely solely on it, and if what your prof says contradicts the E&E go with what she says. It seems to do an adequate job.

[missinglink]

Ignore the prof, but also take heed.

Just stay focused on what your prof teaches, and use the supplement as needed to "supplement" that material. I wouldn't rely on it as the sole source of material, but like others have said, if you use it in addition to whatever else you have to do, the E&E is a great resource.

My Civpro prof specifically recommended the Glannon E&E.

[General Tso]

profs tend to do that. the civpro E&E is probably the best of the whole series...you could study that alone and probably get at least a B+. that's why they don't want you using it.

[BruceWayne]

profs tend to do that. the civpro E&E is probably the best of the whole series...you could study that alone and probably get at least a B+. that's why they don't want you using it.

profs tend to do that. the civpro E&E is probably the best of the whole series...you could study that alone and probably get at least a B+. that's why they don't want you using it.

This is serious hyperbole. I had a Civ Pro professor that sounds similar to the OP's, and I assure you that relying on the E&E was not the path to "at least a B+". Supplement his lectures/case assignments with the EandE to make sure you have everything down.

OP the E and E is great but take your professor's advice as a sign that he likes really in depth/ complex (probably policy driven) responses on his Civ Pro exams. He will probably take time to teach you that style of civ pro in his class, so pay attention.

[Gatriel]

What all are you working on this semester?

All we've done thus far is joinder, (impleading, intervening, etc) and class actions.

[JCougar]

profs tend to do that. the civpro E&E is probably the best of the whole series...you could study that alone and probably get at least a B+. that's why they don't want you using it.

Not here you couldn't.

We've already covered a few topics not covered by the E&E. I have it, and even regarding General/Specific jurisdictions, it acts as a very high-level summary for what we've learned so far.

[adude]

I agree w/ most of the advice ITT. My prof asked very detailed policy questions, engaged particular justices' viewpoints on jurisdiction, and covered several topics not addressed in the E&E. This did not make the E&E worthless. It just meant you needed to pay attention in class and do the readings as well.

This is the way I used the E&E: I read each relevant section, adding issues into my outline if I had missed them, and did almost every hypo in those sections as if they were exam questions (especially the "three rings" hypos are helpful to synthesize PJ+SMJ+Venue). This forced me to type out a rules section again and again and hit the same analysis each time. I got quick enough at the basics that I spent very little time on the test for these parts. Instead, I could concentrate on what I considered the hard problems - policy questions and the curveball questions where it wasn't clear what rule to analyze under.

EDIT: after rereading your post, I think what your prof is concerned about is that some students might take the E&E explanations as ideal exam answers. Of course, they are not. Usually the explanations only point out the main issues. If you understand this going in, and realize your analysis must be more complete than the explanations, then I don't think you will fall into that trap.

[rdcws000]

E & E's are great for light reading during the semester, and even better for study groups/solo study to quiz each other/yourself using the examples. I don't buy one for every class, but I usually buy it when it is highly recommended either by the prof or by students. I read the Torts one during Torts and it was very helpful. Reading the Civ Pro one now.

[beach_terror]

Don't get the E&E, get this:


I had both the Freer book and the E&E, and after opening Freer's I never touched the E&E again. I did very well in Civ Pro, FWIW. The treatise goes into much better depth, offers excellent reasons as to why cases come down the way they do, synthesizes lines of cases and explains how to write a compelling exam answer for each major section.

[goosey]

i stopped using the e&e as a "pre class" intro mid-semester because I started noticing it contradicted with certain things my professor said. If anything, don't use the e&e until you have what your professor taught you down cold. I used the glannon guide the days leading up to the exam and it was amazing. It helped me practice mc questions and at the same time, I was familiar enough with what my prof taught that the book didn't mess with me.

[kalvano]

My professor teaches basically straight out of the E&E.

[adude]

also, note that civpro is a field that changes rapidly. For e.g. last year the Hertz v Friend decision solidified the test for a corporation's principal place of business. The E&E treats this as unsettled law. Of course, now the nerve center test is all you need to know re PPB. So watch out for outdated bits if you are using an older E&E.

[YourCaptain]

Use both Freer and Glannon, relying principally on your professors interpretation.

[5ky]

I used the Friedenthal hornbook, and while I had the E&E, I rarely used it. Like others, I found the treatise supplement to provide far superior nuance into the material. The E&E might be good if you have absolutely no idea as to what is going on in your class. Provided you do have at least a vague understanding, though, I would recommend relying more heavily on Freer/Friedenthal.

http://www.amazon.com/Procedure-Hornboo ... 0314156119

[missinglink]

I used the Friedenthal hornbook, and while I had the E&E, I rarely used it. Like others, I found the treatise supplement to provide far superior nuance into the material. The E&E might be good if you have absolutely no idea as to what is going on in your class. Provided you do have at least a vague understanding, though, I would recommend relying more heavily on Freer/Friedenthal.

http://www.amazon.com/Procedure-Hornboo ... 0314156119

Very good hornbook. That's actually one of the supplements I didn't sell back, so that I could have it around for Civpro II.

[keg411]

I didn't use the E&E. Freer's BarBri lecture FTW!

[Borhas]

Hey all. I have a teacher who has specifically mentioned that we should not use the Glannon E&E. Says that it is too basic, and will lead to sub par exam answers.

I have been using the E&E, and find it lays the issues out quite well... so this confuses me. Do you think this is a case of the professor taking for granted how little we know, or should I follow her advice?

he's full of crap

it's good.... maybe not good enough for you to rely on 100%.. but that's what they call it a supplement

edit: I used the glannon guide not the E&E....

[daesonesb]

Update: My prof has gone on to recommend a supplement.

Guess what? They chose Freer.

While I like the E&E, the class is pretty policy driven. As a result, I'm going to use both in conjunction with eachother.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How important is it to be working from the latest edition of Glannon's Civ Pro E&E? There's a new hardcover edition coming out this month that's on Amazon for $170, vs. the sixth edition paperback which is up for $37.40.

Obviously the newer edition is going to be more relevant, but is it going to be SO MUCH MORE relevant that it's worth splashing out an extra $130? Am I going to wind up learning a ton of irrelevant stuff if I use the sixth edition (published in 2008) as a general civ pro supplement?

EDIT: I need to work on my reading comp. The $170 book is just straight up "Civil Procedure", not an E&E. But the general question stands: have things changed significantly since 2008?

[Borhas]

How important is it to be working from the latest edition of Glannon's Civ Pro E&E? There's a new hardcover edition coming out this month that's on Amazon for $170, vs. the sixth edition paperback which is up for $37.40.

Obviously the newer edition is going to be more relevant, but is it going to be SO MUCH MORE relevant that it's worth splashing out an extra $130? Am I going to wind up learning a ton of irrelevant stuff if I use the sixth edition (published in 2008) as a general civ pro supplement?

EDIT: I need to work on my reading comp. The $170 book is just straight up "Civil Procedure", not an E&E. But the general question stands: have things changed significantly since 2008?

no, it's not worth the extra $130, frankly I wouldn't pay an extra $10

[kalvano]

I found the 6th edition to be much better than the 5th edition. Better lay out, more current. Worth another $25 to me.

But the Glannon Guide to Civ Pro is well worth the $25, too. It has stuff in it the E&E doesn't.