E&E Editions: Always go with most current? Forum

[crossarmant]

Hey, TLS, I'm starting up my 1L at the end of August and am looking to make an effective use of my time with the next month and a half. I've read through Getting to Maybe and want to work through some E&Es before I start, but looking on Amazon I notice that for the newest editions it's like $35 but for edition prior to it it's ~$2. I know in the context of $X a year for tuition $28 dollar difference is nothing, but how awful is it to use an older edition to study with as a 0L?

[kaiser]

Two points.

1. For most classes it is fine to use an older edition since the law doesn't change all that much. Id get the newest civ pro edition though.

2. You should NOT be reading them before classes start. Nor do you know at this point whether they will be of any help given the particularities of your professors

[CanadianWolf]

Depends upon whether the new edition includes substantial legal developments. If so, then use only the newer edition. The text book industry is infamous for publishing new editions just to generate new sales to schools & students.

Was "Getting To Maybe" worthwhile ?

[goodolgil]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

[Kilpatrick]

Get the old ones. Don't read them yet.

[Doritos]

Depends upon whether the new edition includes substantial legal developments. If so, then use only the newer edition. The text book industry is infamous for publishing new editions just to generate new sales to schools & students.

Was "Getting To Maybe" worthwhile ?

If you read the threads about how to succeed I would say its largely superfluous. Biggest piece of advice I'd give is to spend time learning how to write a law school exam by actually writing law school exams (practice tests).

[YourCaptain]

Get the 2nd-most recent edition.

[crossarmant]

Depends upon whether the new edition includes substantial legal developments. If so, then use only the newer edition. The text book industry is infamous for publishing new editions just to generate new sales to schools & students.

Was "Getting To Maybe" worthwhile ?

If you read the threads about how to succeed I would say its largely superfluous. Biggest piece of advice I'd give is to spend time learning how to write a law school exam by actually writing law school exams (practice tests).

Getting to maybe was fairly worthwhile. Not the end-all-be-all of help, but it at least gives me a heads up on how to go into things.

I'm fairly familiar with law school test formats. I've been browsing over sample tests leisurely online, but no practice tests yet. Though, I did a post-bachelors legal studies program at University of Richmond and most of the test in it were law school style tests and I finished with damn near a 4.0, so hopefully that experience will help.

[JuTMSY4]

If you read the threads about how to succeed I would say its largely superfluous. Biggest piece of advice I'd give is to spend time learning how to write a law school exam by actually writing law school exams (practice tests).

TITCR. For E&Es, Civ pro is all but a must read and the others are just ok. Anything you're actually having trouble with in Civ Pro has probably not changed much.

Outside of that, GTM was fairly useless. I know people who did very well and didn't touch it - and the opposite of that. But if you must do 0L prep, it's fine.

And it's not learning how to take A law school exam, it's learning your prof's law school exam. You really can't even attempt this until October at the earliest. So hit the beach

[flcath]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

[goodolgil]

The discovery section was pretty useless as well.

I think it's recommended mostly for the parts on jurisdiction. Glannon doesn't really bother to go into any sort of detail on the FRCP stuff.

[TTH]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

Civ Pro is split into two classes here, so I haven't done any of the FRCP stuff yet really. I thought the E&E, while good for jurisdiction and what not, was a little overrated since the BarBri lectures give it to you in such an easily digestible format. In fact, if you want a Civ Pro supp, I'm tempted to recommend Freer's supp over the E&E anyway.

ETA: Does anyone know if there's been much change in the Rules of Evidence such that I could not get away with using an old supp for it?

[keg411]

Didn't use Glannon/E&E for CivPro. Freer FTW! (But you can't watch Freer until late November at the earliest for it to actually help). OP, just relax, go to the beach and don't try to do 0L prep. It's really not necessary, and like the previous poster said, you need to really learn the professors before you can even attempt a law school exam.

[crossarmant]

I ordered a few of the previous editions (Torts, Contracts, Property) just now, each were between $3-$9. I figure I'll thumb through them, if I'm finding them exciting or seemingly helpful I'll read deeper. If not, then they're there for the Fall. I guess part of me is really trying to be a gunner; but I think, as most everyone here says, it's going to be best to work to the specific test since it is 100% of your grade.

[dakatz]

I ordered a few of the previous editions (Torts, Contracts, Property) just now, each were between $3-$9. I figure I'll thumb through them, if I'm finding them exciting or seemingly helpful I'll read deeper. If not, then they're there for the Fall. I guess part of me is really trying to be a gunner; but I think, as most everyone here says, it's going to be best to work to the specific test since it is 100% of your grade.

You couldn't possibly know whether they are helpful before school starts. For all you know, you find it the most engaging read in the world, and then you get to school thinking you know the material, but the professor says "Do NOT rely on black letter law from supplements because thats not at all my approach". Don't believe me? This very thing happened to me. I would show the professor the black letter rules I extracted from the E&E and crunchtime book before school started. He pretty much disagreed with everything, and said to put what I had read out of my mind. Its things like this which make me caution 0L's against wasting time with it. Even if the professor loved the black letter law and basic stuff from supplements, I would STILL caution strongly against it.

[thecilent]

Even if the professor loved the black letter law and basic stuff from supplements, I would STILL caution strongly against it.

whyy?

[dakatz]

Even if the professor loved the black letter law and basic stuff from supplements, I would STILL caution strongly against it.

whyy?

I'm only referring to reading the stuff before school starts. If the professor loved the black letter law and recommends supplements, then definitely rely on those during the semester. The only way I would ever recommend doing any substantive prep in advance is when you have the syllabus, and the professor specifically recommends a certain supplement. That way you can go to the chapter of the suppelement exactly corresponding to the material that you know for sure will constitute a portion of the class. Absent that level of certainty, then I think its a waste of time.

[UnitarySpace]

I ordered a few of the previous editions (Torts, Contracts, Property) just now, each were between $3-$9. I figure I'll thumb through them, if I'm finding them exciting or seemingly helpful I'll read deeper. If not, then they're there for the Fall. I guess part of me is really trying to be a gunner; but I think, as most everyone here says, it's going to be best to work to the specific test since it is 100% of your grade.

You couldn't possibly know whether they are helpful before school starts. For all you know, you find it the most engaging read in the world, and then you get to school thinking you know the material, but the professor says "Do NOT rely on black letter law from supplements because thats not at all my approach". Don't believe me? This very thing happened to me. I would show the professor the black letter rules I extracted from the E&E and crunchtime book before school started. He pretty much disagreed with everything, and said to put what I had read out of my mind. Its things like this which make me caution 0L's against wasting time with it. Even if the professor loved the black letter law and basic stuff from supplements, I would STILL caution strongly against it.

This is right.

[crossarmant]

I ordered a few of the previous editions (Torts, Contracts, Property) just now, each were between $3-$9. I figure I'll thumb through them, if I'm finding them exciting or seemingly helpful I'll read deeper. If not, then they're there for the Fall. I guess part of me is really trying to be a gunner; but I think, as most everyone here says, it's going to be best to work to the specific test since it is 100% of your grade.

You couldn't possibly know whether they are helpful before school starts. For all you know, you find it the most engaging read in the world, and then you get to school thinking you know the material, but the professor says "Do NOT rely on black letter law from supplements because thats not at all my approach". Don't believe me? This very thing happened to me. I would show the professor the black letter rules I extracted from the E&E and crunchtime book before school started. He pretty much disagreed with everything, and said to put what I had read out of my mind. Its things like this which make me caution 0L's against wasting time with it. Even if the professor loved the black letter law and basic stuff from supplements, I would STILL caution strongly against it.

Completely understandable. I don't really plan on delving balls deep into it, but I want at least to familiarize myself with at least the subject and style of readings. And for a few bucks, I figure why not.

[Grizz]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

Agree with you 100%. We did preclusion in 2 days and barely touched joinder. We also learned Erie differently. We did a LOT on PJ, and it was different. Also did class actions, MSJ, and 12(b)(6).

And the teacher even recommended this E&E. What a waste.

[ndirish2010]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

Agree with you 100%. We did preclusion in 2 days and barely touched joinder. We also learned Erie differently. We did a LOT on PJ, and it was different. Also did class actions, MSJ, and 12(b)(6).

And the teacher even recommended this E&E. What a waste.

In my civ pro class we literally discussed Erie for 30 minutes at the end of the last class of the semester. I didn't even touch that part of Glannon. I disagree that Glannon is not good for personal jurisdiction...I found the examples fairly helpful. It is great for SMJ, venue, and the joinder rules...as well as res judicata and collateral estoppel. Overall I was a huge fan of Glannon.

[ndirish2010]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

Did you have Robinson?

[jack duluoz]

I got an A in torts and used an older version. The fact of the matter is that the E&Es suck for a majority of the first year classes, which sucks.

[beach_terror]

Get the old ones.

Civ Pro is the only class where it really matters, and even the newest edition is out of date anyway, and it's only badly out of date in an area (pleadings) that the E&E is basically useless for anyway.

Am I the only one who found the Civ Pro E&E grossly inadequate?

I thought it was great for the topics it covered (exception: personal jurisdiction... wtf, Glannon?), but it had a really cursory treatment of pleading, sanctions, FUCKING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND 12(B)(6).

It also skipped class actions entirely, which my guy spent like 6 classes on.... And, oh yeah, its Erie coverage wasn't that great (it sucked after Hanna). Really it was just badass for SMJ, preclusion, and the various joinder/impleader/intervenor combos.

I hated the Civ Pro E&E. I used Freer's hornbook, so good.

[YourCaptain]

CivPro - grossly overrated, Freer is better.
Torts - good for demonstrating how many issues are present; the answers given are instructive on how to write out answers.
Ks - Bad.
Property - Great.