Top Law Schools

How much detail do you typically go into for the rule statement? I know some of this depends on the rule itself and how you are applying it, but some examples may illustrate:

1) Personal jurisdiction requires that a defendant have sufficient contact with the forum state so as exercising jurisdiction over him does not offend due process under the Constitution.

or

2) Personal jurisdiction requires that a state does not offend an individual's due process rights under the Constitution and can be satisfied by his presence within the state, domicile within the state, consent to being sued in the state, committing a tortious act within the state, conducting sufficient business in the state, or ownership of property in the state.

----

For this, pretend you are going to discuss minimum contacts for the individual. Most of that fluff in 2) is unnecessary for the actual minimum contacts analysis, but it is part of the way you could normally satisfy PJD. Should it be included? Is this a professor specific thing?

It seems like time spend doing this could add up if multiplied out (in either a good or bad way). But I definitely don't want to miss easy points by not stating the rule incorrectly.

Thoughts?

To add another example:

Venue is the district or county within a state where the action can be brought.

or...

Venue is the district or county within a state where the action can be brought. Venue is proper where 1) Defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, 2) where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or, 3) in diversity cases, any district where any Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if no district where the case may otherwise be brought, or in federal question cases, any district where any Defendant may be “found,” if no district where the case may otherwise be brought.

After looking at this again, I'm leaning towards the latter in both categories. Although it just seems so damn wordy.

Do you have word limits? Most if not all of my exams do, so I will have to be concise. I have the same question though. One of my profs pretty much said anything you mention that doesn't directly affect the issue at hand won't get you any points, although i'm not sure if he said that meaning don't give us a college style fact regurgitation or if he did that to mean only the stuff that is really relevant.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. For example with venue I would put:

"Venue is the district within a state where the action can be brought. Venue is proper where defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred"

And only add in the extra clauses if those pertain to the problem you are analyzing.

Focus on the points at issue. So, to use your venue example, I would only include an in-depth explanation regarding where venue is proper in diversity cases if the facts of the question you are presented with involve citizens of different states. If they are all citizens of the same state, there is absolutely no need to go in depth with the diversity requirement. So basically, as the poster right above said, it's somewhere in the middle between your examples.

An in-depth discussion of clear non-issues wastes your valuable time. You won't lose points for fleshing out a non-issue, but somebody else who concisely acknowledges the non-relevance of specific issues that the facts clearly indicate are not at issue will be busy moving on to other issues where they can receive more +1s while you are spinning your wheels on a non-issue where there are few, if any, points to be gained.

Thanks. Helpful replies. I also just got one back from my prof and she recommended that I provide a short general statement at the outset, preferably with a citation, but then immediately delve into the specifics of what applies in this situation and the analysis. In other words, the same thing.