Top Law Schools

If the professor doesn't necessarily and explicitly define the rule, for example: intent is..., then how the hell can I begin to even know what to do?

Edit: Knowing the BLL, the BLL that the professor wants the students to know, as different from that which is coldly laid out in the restatements or some supplement, seems difficult to acquire. It is difficult to acquire because the professor doesn't seem to have the interest in laying out the elements in the language he finds acceptable.

This seems relevant given that in order to make an argument for how a novel fact situation should turn out often turns on the language, and if we don't know the BLL then...

Don't sweat it.

bump b/c it seems important.

brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.

It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.

brickman wrote:If the professor doesn't necessarily and explicitly define the rule, for example: intent is..., then how the hell can I begin to even know what to do?

Are office hours a reasonable place to be direct and ask how they define it or am I going to have to assume it's the restatement and then be up the creek without the paddle come grading time because all the while the professor had another definition that he was working with.

Allow me to save you the time of reading GTM:

The problem with your question is that there is no answer. There is no clear line, so provide arguments on both sides on the exam if it is a close call. If the answer is clear cut, then don't bother arguing the other side but realize that this is very rare and you're probably missing something.

hth

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=164225

These threads connect . . . somehow.

NYC Law wrote:

brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.

It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.

I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.

brickman wrote:

NYC Law wrote:

brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.

It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.

I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.

you are in no way familiar with GTM if that is your response. This time, read the words in order and turn each page after you complete the previous one.

kwais wrote:

brickman wrote:

NYC Law wrote:

brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.

It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.

I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.

you are in no way familiar with GTM if that is your response. This time, read the words in order and turn each page after you complete the previous one.

I guess there is some ambiguity in my original post, the BLL of the course is not being explicitly stated in the course.

As an example:

Intent, an element of an intentional tort, has not even been close to defined. The language given by the professor isn't exact and he has only cursorily referenced language to it. Emphasis on TLS is placed on knowing the BLL and applying it to novel fact situations, so if I don't know my professors brand of BLL then I can't do the process that GTM lays out.

Or is this still fuzy?

Why don't you go to office hours and ask them?

This is what supplements are for.

spleenworship wrote:Why don't you go to office hours and ask them?

'Are office hours a reasonable place to be direct and ask how they define it or am I going to have to assume it's the restatement and then be up the creek without the paddle come grading time because all the while the professor had another definition that he was working with.'

I noted that earlier (though i edited it out for some reason) , so I just wanted to know if that was a reasonable thing to do. Thanks.

chimp wrote:This is what supplements are for.

Don't professors like the BLL to be in their own particular language, and having the language down seems significant when making certain determinations about how the law should play out.

brickman wrote:

chimp wrote:This is what supplements are for.

Don't professors like the BLL to be in their own particular language, and having the language down seems significant when making certain determinations about how the law should play out.

Maybe if your professor was Prosser ressurrected. Damn near every other torts prof will be happy with the restatement definition.

So many hysteric threads about torts this year. Relax folks. The shit is like the gym class of law school.*


* - Which means the curve will be tighter because more people will grasp the basics of it versus say... contracts, where being able to step through a battle of forms question without screwing up nets you easy points. OMGZPANIC.

Go to your profs office hours if you're worried about it. Ask if the restatement is sufficient. Problem solved.

The Restatement definition is fine. The law is the law. Your prof. likely didn't write it. If s/he wants something alternative, s/he will tell you. Your question seems to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of law/school. But it's still early, keep plugging away.

+1 to TTH. Seems yo be an abnormal amount of torts stress so far. Chillax folks.

This is what supplements are for. Intent is a very basic concept with little wiggle room in the field of tort law. Your prof doesn't hold some magic definition to it, and if he did he would have told you. Re-read the cases and supplement as necessary.

Intent for torts - you either meant to do it (you're a son of a bitch) or you damn well should have known it would happen (you're an inconsiderate jackass).

kalvano wrote:Intent for torts - you either meant to do it (you're a son of a bitch) or you damn well should have known it would happen (you're an inconsiderate jackass).

You should write a supplement.