Top Law Schools

As many of you know, this book has everything, but it's way to much for a semester of Con. For example, we're going over standing now, and my casebook (Choper) highlights 3 cases with a few other in the notes and comments section, but Chermeninsky mentions about 20. Would it be best to look up the cases in my casebook in the index of the treatise and then piece together the important stuff (Allen case for standing is mentioned briefly on about 10 different pages). Or would it be best to read through everything, but just glance over the cases that are not mentioned in my book. I just don't want to miss anything that I could put on an exam, even though Chermeninsky goes into much greater depth. Thanks!

corporatelaw87 wrote:As many of you know, this book has everything, but it's way to much for a semester of Con. For example, we're going over standing now, and my casebook (Choper) highlights 3 cases with a few other in the notes and comments section, but Chermeninsky mentions about 20. Would it be best to look up the cases in my casebook in the index of the treatise and then piece together the important stuff (Allen case for standing is mentioned briefly on about 10 different pages). Or would it be best to read through everything, but just glance over the cases that are not mentioned in my book. I just don't want to miss anything that I could put on an exam, even though Chermeninsky goes into much greater depth. Thanks!

What is "Con"? Constitutional Law or Contracts? (It's especially confusing because standing is traditionally a Civ Pro issue...)

Heartford wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:As many of you know, this book has everything, but it's way to much for a semester of Con. For example, we're going over standing now, and my casebook (Choper) highlights 3 cases with a few other in the notes and comments section, but Chermeninsky mentions about 20. Would it be best to look up the cases in my casebook in the index of the treatise and then piece together the important stuff (Allen case for standing is mentioned briefly on about 10 different pages). Or would it be best to read through everything, but just glance over the cases that are not mentioned in my book. I just don't want to miss anything that I could put on an exam, even though Chermeninsky goes into much greater depth. Thanks!

What is "Con"? Constitutional Law or Contracts? (It's especially confusing because standing is traditionally a Civ Pro issue...)

Pretty clear he meant conlaw because he's referencing Chem.

If it's not in your text or mentioned in class, don't read it.

Heartford wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:As many of you know, this book has everything, but it's way to much for a semester of Con. For example, we're going over standing now, and my casebook (Choper) highlights 3 cases with a few other in the notes and comments section, but Chermeninsky mentions about 20. Would it be best to look up the cases in my casebook in the index of the treatise and then piece together the important stuff (Allen case for standing is mentioned briefly on about 10 different pages). Or would it be best to read through everything, but just glance over the cases that are not mentioned in my book. I just don't want to miss anything that I could put on an exam, even though Chermeninsky goes into much greater depth. Thanks!

What is "Con"? Constitutional Law or Contracts? (It's especially confusing because standing is traditionally a Civ Pro issue...)

"Con" is Constitutional Law and it is very much a Con Law issue. It's one of the basics covered in most Con Law I courses.

As far as how to used it, I just would caution you to be careful not to chase too far down the rabbit hole. The great thing about Chermeninsky is also the dangerous thing about it. EVERYTHING you could possibly need to know is in there but for Con Law I you don't need to know everything.

What worked well for me is I read from the casebook, added on notes in class based on what the prof said, and then I read through Chermeninsky and added anything I thought was interesting/useful into my notes. But only stuff that pertained directly to what the prof had talked about in class.

+1 to fathergoose's suggestion. In a similar vein, I used Dressler the same way in crim.