Are theoretical discussions in casebooks important? Forum

[arvcondor]

A lot of what appears in the casebooks seems to not be cases at all, but rather the books' authors' (or other authors from other books) laying down theoretical foundations.

Are these important? If I were to focus on them, would I be doing so at the expense of the cases?

[kalvano]

I would skim them and then go back and re-read anything your professor specifically points out.

[johansantana21]

Curious as well. How would this be tested on an exam? Would you need to know the reasons why someone thought contracts were more important based on form than substance etc...

[kahechsof]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

[johansantana21]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

Hmmm....So much conflicting advice.

[arvcondor]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

[kahechsof]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

Yet it is.

Do you have 1 week of experience?

[vamedic03]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

Lol.

[birdlaw117]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

0L, but I feel like it should actually be "The ONLY important things are the things the professor cares about. And what the professor talks about is likely to be a very accurate proxy for that, but not necessarily 100% accurate (but close).

(0L because I start tomorrow, not because I'm in the application process)

[arvcondor]

I'm offering that it doesn't sound correct because at least one of my professors doesn't actually say shit.

[TTH]

If your professor shows a special love for theory and policy (tends to happen more in crim), then you'll want to pay more attention to this crap.

[morris248]

It usually only matters in Constitutional law. I agree, if the professor wants policy, he will let you know. If any of his old exams are available that will give you a guide. Most of the in between stuff in the casebook you can ignore.

[kahechsof]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

0L, but I feel like it should actually be "The ONLY important things are the things the professor cares about. And what the professor talks about is likely to be a very accurate proxy for that, but not necessarily 100% accurate (but close).

(0L because I start tomorrow, not because I'm in the application process)

Bad gunning.

I'm offering that it doesn't sound correct because at least one of my professors doesn't actually say shit.

0L's are so cute.

[shoeshine]

Two of my professors are co-authors on the casebooks I am using for their classes but their hypotheticals focus on completely different nuances and issues than the ones in the casebooks.

I am writing down their hypotheticals and ignoring the casebook's. I hope that pays off.

[birdlaw117]

The ONLY important things are the things the professor talks about.

This does not seem correct at all.

0L, but I feel like it should actually be "The ONLY important things are the things the professor cares about. And what the professor talks about is likely to be a very accurate proxy for that, but not necessarily 100% accurate (but close).

(0L because I start tomorrow, not because I'm in the application process)

Bad gunning.

???????

[kahechsof]

Bad gunning.

???????

Making fine arguments where it makes no difference.

[birdlaw117]

Bad gunning.

???????

Making fine arguments where it makes no difference.

Sorry for giving an opinion that is only 98% the same as yours and that it got your panties in a bunch...

[kahechsof]

Bad gunning.

???????

Making fine arguments where it makes no difference.

Sorry for giving an opinion that is only 98% the same as yours and that it got your panties in a bunch...

98% is only good depending on the curve.

(Dude, I was kidding.)