old supplements Forum

[theturkeyisfat]

how current do supplements need to be for civil procedure, contracts, constitutional law, and torts?

[20160810]

Protein powder tends to go bad after a year, creatine you can keep for about 2 years. Beyond that, just throw it out.

[kapital98]

Protein powder tends to go bad after a year, creatine you can keep for about 2 years. Beyond that, just throw it out.

Wait... Creatine will start to crystallize WAY before 2 years. I would recommend keeping creatine for ~1 year and then throwing it out.

[theturkeyisfat]

Protein powder tends to go bad after a year, creatine you can keep for about 2 years. Beyond that, just throw it out.

Seriously though... Any thoughts?

[kapital98]

Protein powder tends to go bad after a year, creatine you can keep for about 2 years. Beyond that, just throw it out.

Seriously though... Any thoughts?

Black Letter Law practically never changes. A supplement that is 1-2 editions out of date is completely reasonable and will save you a great deal of money.

If you have a chance to look at the most recent edition and an older edition do so. I would caution against really old supplement (ex:1990's) because the explanations may be rather lackluster. Supplements generally improve with time -- but most of the time a new edition is just new page numbers and a couple new lines of text.

Ex: The newest version of Glannon's "Civil Procedure E&E" only has ~2 places where it says (paraphrased): "There is currently no firm rule and new cases may change the law in the near future." That's a 722 page supplement... In that case your professor would probably give you a heads up on the issue anyways.

[spleenworship]

Wait... so I had a similar question. I was recommended P&K on Torts, but there is nothing after the 5th edition- last updated in 1988 if I am understanding correctly.

Did I just waste $40?

[kapital98]

Wait... so I had a similar question. I was recommended P&K on Torts, but there is nothing after the 5th edition- last updated in 1988 if I am understanding correctly.

Did I just waste $40?

Probably not...

I don't know. Maybe someone who has used this will chime in. ~25 years is a long time for law to evolve.

[kapital98]

Here's a quote from the Amazon review page:

"First of all, the most recent edition of this text dates from 1984. That means quite a bit of it is at least slightly out of date, and some of it is massively so (particularly in the field of products liability). For a more up-to-date hornbook, consider Dobbs. (I bought and used both.)

Second, when your torts professor talks about "black-letter law," s/he's not talking about this hornbook or any other; s/he's usually talking about the Restatement (Second) of Torts (or, in products liability, the Restatement (Third)). As much as I like hornbooks (and I am emphatically not a fan of the "casebook" approach), I have to say that if you want to get _one_ text to supplement your casebook, you should pick up _A Concise Restatement of Torts_ from the American Law Institute. And, ideally, you should memorize large portions of it."

HTH

[SeymourShowz]

This question comes up quite a bit. The answer is normally framed as a consideration of changing law v. law that is generally static, like civ pro v. property. The canned response is that you should buy new supplements for civ pro, but you can settle for old ones for property. I think the basic premise is sound, but it neglects to consider that new supplements are sometimes just better, regardless of changes in the law. This seems particularly true with E&E's, which appear to have become significantly better throughout the years (better examples, more examples, better editing, etc). For example, the newest edition of the Tort's E&E includes some basic intentional torts (false imprisonment and others) that were not covered by the last edition. My recommendation is to do a little research before you make purchases.. Compare the tables of contents for both edition and see if there are any important new areas that have been added. If not, you might be fine with the older edition, but I still like to spring for the new ones.

[morris248]

This question comes up quite a bit. The answer is normally framed as a consideration of changing law v. law that is generally static, like civ pro v. property. The canned response is that you should buy new supplements for civ pro, but you can settle for old ones for property. I think the basic premise is sound, but it neglects to consider that new supplements are sometimes just better, regardless of changes in the law. This seems particularly true with E&E's, which appear to have become significantly better throughout the years (better examples, more examples, better editing, etc). For example, the newest edition of the Tort's E&E includes some basic intentional torts (false imprisonment and others) that were not covered by the last edition. My recommendation is to do a little research before you make purchases.. Compare the tables of contents for both edition and see if there are any important new areas that have been added. If not, you might be fine with the older edition, but I still like to spring for the new ones.

I agree. The supplements are not all that expensive anyway unless you buy at the bookstore instead of online at places like Amazon. Buy new or no more than one edition back and then resell. The difference will be negligible.