Top Law Schools

I'm starting to use a couple old torts exams to practice issue spotting (none are from my actual prof). Can anyone give any pointers on how best to do this? I don't want to spend too much time, or write out complete answers. I was thinking of making an outlined list, first by principle, then by arguments for/against based on facts.

For example:

I. Custom
A. Rule(s)
B. arguments for defendant
C. arguments for plaintiff
D. conclusion

II. Negligence
A. Rule(s)
B. arguments for defendant
C. arguments for plaintiff
D. conclusion

You get the idea. Any thoughts?

LEEWS talks about this. His opinion is that you can either do it your way or this way:

Rule statement (IE battery is a 1) .... 2) ..... 3) ......)
Analysis of Element 1: P's arguments for, D's against, yes/no
Analysis of Element 2: P's arguments for, D's against, yes/no
Etc.

And then you can gloss over non-contestable elements very quickly and get to the "core" element where the parties are likely to fight it out.

I think whichever way works best for you. Personally, I think the way I posted makes more logical sense for me, so that'll be the way I will do it.

shock259 wrote:LEEWS talks about this. His opinion is that you can either do it your way or this way:

Rule statement (IE battery is a 1) .... 2) ..... 3) ......)
Analysis of Element 1: P's arguments for, D's against, yes/no
Analysis of Element 2: P's arguments for, D's against, yes/no
Etc.

And then you can gloss over non-contestable elements very quickly and get to the "core" element where the parties are likely to fight it out.

I think whichever way works best for you. Personally, I think the way I posted makes more logical sense for me, so that'll be the way I will do it.

Nicely explained.