Top Law Schools

I think I'm having some difficulty knowing what all I should glean from class and from the casebook. I understand that we're supposed to be primarily concerned with the law/rule, but that seems too simple. For example, the court in International Shoe found that the Due Process Clause suggests fairness, justice, and reasonableness. As such, a corporation must have certain minimum contacts within the state for state courts to have personal jurisdiction over D.

So that's the black letter law of the case. Is this literally all we need? I feel like I have to be missing something.


Also, in addition to the BLL how in depth should we go into the reasons why exactly the law is what it is (i.e. [in reference to the case above,] "this ensures that D isn't unfairly burdened"). Any help would be appreciated.

I also wanted to add that I realize that the hard part is the exam when you actually have to apply the law to facts. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything for the exam.

waltw1414 wrote:I think I'm having some difficulty knowing what all I should glean from class and from the casebook. I understand that we're supposed to be primarily concerned with the law/rule, but that seems too simple. For example, the court in International Shoe found that the Due Process Clause suggests fairness, justice, and reasonableness. As such, a corporation must have certain minimum contacts within the state for state courts to have personal jurisdiction over D.

So that's the black letter law of the case. Is this literally all we need? I feel like I have to be missing something.


Also, in addition to the BLL how in depth should we go into the reasons why exactly the law is what it is (i.e. [in reference to the case above,] "this ensures that D isn't unfairly burdened"). Any help would be appreciated.

Yeah all you need to know from International Shoe is the minimum contacts test, but also (importantly) you need to learn how to apply it. It's one thing to say that personal jurisdiction can't be exercised without minimum contacts, and quite another to argue what constitutes minimum contacts.

Explaining the policy rationale for the state of the law is always a good idea for extra exam points, but the meat of your grade will be in your analysis, which is how to apply the law (in this case, the minimum contacts test) to the facts.

The hard part about law school isn't learning the material or the process of exam writing. The hard part about law school is that it isn't hard to learn the material or the process of exam writing, that combined with the fact that everyone (presumably) in your class is wicked smart makes life very difficult come exam time.

Heartford wrote:

waltw1414 wrote:I think I'm having some difficulty knowing what all I should glean from class and from the casebook. I understand that we're supposed to be primarily concerned with the law/rule, but that seems too simple. For example, the court in International Shoe found that the Due Process Clause suggests fairness, justice, and reasonableness. As such, a corporation must have certain minimum contacts within the state for state courts to have personal jurisdiction over D.

So that's the black letter law of the case. Is this literally all we need? I feel like I have to be missing something.


Also, in addition to the BLL how in depth should we go into the reasons why exactly the law is what it is (i.e. [in reference to the case above,] "this ensures that D isn't unfairly burdened"). Any help would be appreciated.

Yeah all you need to know from International Shoe is the minimum contacts test, but also (importantly) you need to learn how to apply it. It's one thing to say that personal jurisdiction can't be exercised without minimum contacts, and quite another to argue what constitutes minimum contacts.

Explaining the policy rationale for the state of the law is always a good idea for extra exam points, but the meat of your grade will be in your analysis, which is how to apply the law (in this case, the minimum contacts test) to the facts.

Thanks! I think International said it depends on the "quality and nature" of the contacts, which is obviously ambiguous. I guess that was a bad example on my part.

It just seems so simple to read an entire case and the only thing we need (which is fairly easy to find) is the BLL. I'm trying to resist the urge to go deep into the case.

I mean what would even be the point in going to the class lecture on International Shoe if all we need is the BLL? To hear him/her, instead of the author, say that the case established the minimum contacts standard?

You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

k

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

What I don't get is why this guy continues to troll TLS. What is the point?

chimp wrote:

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

What I don't get is why this guy continues to troll TLS. What is the point?

LOL. I scanned his posts, and it's basically him calling people idiots and propping himself up. That's one of the problems with internet - it's filled with a bunch of cowards who would never say the things they say in person.

waltw1414 wrote:

chimp wrote:

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

What I don't get is why this guy continues to troll TLS. What is the point?

LOL. I scanned his posts, and it's basically him calling people idiots and propping himself up. That's one of the problems with internet - it's filled with a bunch of cowards who would never say the things they say in person.

Oh no, I tell people not to go to law school in real life all the time.

MTal wrote:

waltw1414 wrote:

chimp wrote:

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

What I don't get is why this guy continues to troll TLS. What is the point?

LOL. I scanned his posts, and it's basically him calling people idiots and propping himself up. That's one of the problems with internet - it's filled with a bunch of cowards who would never say the things they say in person.

Oh no, I tell people not to go to law school in real life all the time.

I hate to change the subject on my own thread, but then why are you in law school?

waltw1414 wrote: I hate to change the subject on my own thread, but then why are you in law school?

I'm not. Dropped out after the first year.

MTal wrote:

waltw1414 wrote: I hate to change the subject on my own thread, but then why are you in law school?

I'm not. Dropped out after the first year.

WTF? Is that a joke? Why the hell are you on TLS?

waltw1414 wrote:

MTal wrote:

waltw1414 wrote: I hate to change the subject on my own thread, but then why are you in law school?

I'm not. Dropped out after the first year.

WTF? Is that a joke? Why the hell are you on TLS?

Exactly. Do yourself a favor and just ignore this guy.

he has succeeded in pretty quickly hijacking the thread...

D'Angelo wrote:he has succeeded in pretty quickly hijacking the thread...

Seriously.

Dude, what the hell? Go away.

In response to OP, I'm thinking along the same lines as you, so hopefully you're right.

Regarding "applying law to the facts", you should try to extract the basics of how the test was applied in Int'l Shoe and the subsequent cases that are really applications of the test.

like:

Test: need to have minimum contacts.

Int'l Shoe: Having a sales staff in the state constitutes sufficient minimum contacts.

WWV: Foreseeability is not enough; need something more. Car dealership selling a car that can drive to Kansas from NY does not constitute contacts with Kansas.

etc etc.

The reason you want to extract/outline the case applications is because they become your tools for writing a good exam answer. The exam will say something like "Acme doesn't have much business in Minesota, but they do have some part-time IT workers that are located there that work from home". Then to apply the test, you will say "well this is kind of like Int'l Shoe, but probably a weaker case for minimum contacts because of X,Y,Z. the case can also be compared to WWV because of T,U,V."

the cases give not only the rule, but the rules behind how to properly apply the rule. you can't just make up your own reasons for why some behavior is minimum contacts or not. you need to reason by analogy, referring to how the rule was applied in the cases you read. HTH

Since all of my exams are closed-book and closed-notes, I've been using a flashcard method for the cases we cover that looks a little like this:

-------------------
Case name on front

On back, I state the rule as the professor stated it (if not, how the judge did). If the case was difficult for me to remember I recited the basic situation, but so far that's been rare.

Under that, I list which cases or authorities (persuasive and mandatory) the ruling forks with a la Getting to Maybe.

Then I list which cases the ruling echoes and which authorities and precedents of note were cited as justification in the opinion, with their headings in parentheses to jog my memory as to what they are.

--------------------

So far it has worked for me, and it is especially convenient during a long lunch or break between classes.

I'm going to make an off the wall suggestion here. Try to avoid falling into the trap of black letter law versus not black letter law. In the end, the point of reading cases is to be able to predict how a court will rule in a future case based on past decisions. In other words, every time you read a case, you should be looking at: (a) what rule did the court apply (less important) and (b) how did the court apply the law to the facts at hand (more important). When you take an exam, the professor is going to expect you to be able to apply the law to facts. The tough work is application of law rather than restatement of law.

Always remember:

(a) The professor is always right (for exam purposes)

(b) Always answer the question asked

(c) Apply law to fact.

Knuckles wrote:Since all of my exams are closed-book and closed-note

arvcondor wrote:

Knuckles wrote:Since all of my exams are closed-book and closed-note

I prefer closed note exams... and if you're looking at the book in anything other than Civ Pro (and that'd just be the Rules, if you even cover them) you're probably screwed.

In fact, in one class, I was allowed to bring a book, didn't, and a couple of the MC questions directly referenced cases that I wasn't 100% sure about, and still got an A on the exam.

MTal wrote:

waltw1414 wrote: I hate to change the subject on my own thread, but then why are you in law school?

I'm not. Dropped out after the first year.

ma koreh, ahi?

having that israeli flag in your profile is insulting. i've watched your inane posting for over a year and it's the same over and again: unfounded criticism of anyone who decides to further their education. i'm sorry that you failed out of law school dropped out, but your personal experience does not in any way reflect upon anyone else.

i only speak now because of your representation as a jew and support of israel. it makes us all look bad to know that such a cynical POS is so visible in a place like this. take your self-righteous BS elsewhere and go find a hobby that doesn't involve pseudo-relevance on a law school forum.

chimp wrote:

MTal wrote:You're missing the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place.

What I don't get is why this guy continues to troll TLS. What is the point?

If it's the only way he knows how to get his rocks off, then I don't begrudge him that

Everyone please shut the fuck up, ignore the troll, and resume discussing the topic of the thread.

It is not deceptively easy; it is actually easy. What makes it difficult is that you are placed on a curve against the rest of your classmates. Everyone who doesnt finish at the top of the curve wont get the best jobs. You'll understand how that works better next year.