Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=148670
You probably shouldn't deviate from whats being taught in class. Ask your prof to be sure.adude wrote:The cases in our course book quote old versions of the Fed Rules. Oftentimes the language has been removed or has been greatly changed. Any suggestions on a good supplement explaining the 2011 fed rules?
Agreed, but don't you use the actual FRCP book?Desert Fox wrote:You probably shouldn't deviate from whats being taught in class. Ask your prof to be sure.adude wrote:The cases in our course book quote old versions of the Fed Rules. Oftentimes the language has been removed or has been greatly changed. Any suggestions on a good supplement explaining the 2011 fed rules?
Unitas wrote:Agreed, but don't you use the actual FRCP book?Desert Fox wrote:You probably shouldn't deviate from whats being taught in class. Ask your prof to be sure.adude wrote:The cases in our course book quote old versions of the Fed Rules. Oftentimes the language has been removed or has been greatly changed. Any suggestions on a good supplement explaining the 2011 fed rules?
Ya, I've got the rulebook. I would just prefer to be learning the recent FRCP and not the old version through our class work. It seems pointless to learn old rules when they have been changed and we would have to apply them in a different way. The only value I can see to this is using the old rules for legislative intent arguments. If there is a supplement with commentary on this year's version that would be ideal.missinglink wrote:I'm pretty sure the changes to Rule 15 caused a lot of people to misstate the law on their CivPro exams last semester. By and large, our class was supplement-driven, and so they were relying on the older Rule 15 language. And wouldn't you know it, we had an entire question based on relation-back and proper amendments. Talking to people after the exam, most seemed unaware that the rules had changed.
I would (1) follow your professor, and (2) follow the new FRCP. You have a rulebook?
Your goal is to get an "A" in your civil procedure course, not to learn the substantive rules governing civil matters in the federal courts. The sooner you learn that these two goals are entirely separate, the better.adude wrote: It seems pointless to learn old rules when they have been changed and we would have to apply them in a different way. The only value I can see to this is using the old rules for legislative intent arguments.
Learn what the professor teaches. The professor grades your exam, hence until your class is over, your prof is always right.adude wrote:Ya, I've got the rulebook. I would just prefer to be learning the recent FRCP and not the old version through our class work. It seems pointless to learn old rules when they have been changed and we would have to apply them in a different way. The only value I can see to this is using the old rules for legislative intent arguments. If there is a supplement with commentary on this year's version that would be ideal.missinglink wrote:I'm pretty sure the changes to Rule 15 caused a lot of people to misstate the law on their CivPro exams last semester. By and large, our class was supplement-driven, and so they were relying on the older Rule 15 language. And wouldn't you know it, we had an entire question based on relation-back and proper amendments. Talking to people after the exam, most seemed unaware that the rules had changed.
I would (1) follow your professor, and (2) follow the new FRCP. You have a rulebook?