Top Law Schools

I keep reading that the professor's word is king, and that his/her word takes precedence to your hornbook/supplement/casebook, etc..........that I'm not really taking "Civ Pro" but more "Civ Pro as My Professor Sees it."

But could someone give me an example of a contradiction between your prof and secondary sources? Either I haven't run into any of these differences, or I am not catching them. Are we talking about differences in terminology? Are some hornbooks/supplements flat-out wrong in the way they define certain things?

Thanks in advance for your help.

It's Sept. 10 dude, don't worry about it yet.

Younger Abstention wrote:It's Sept. 10 dude, don't worry about it yet.

I have a midterm this Thursday! lol........ ugh.

How do you already have a midterm? It's September 10!

I had one of these professors. Definitely stick to what the professor says. I can't think of an example... it's not so much the concept but the phrasing of the concept. Hornbooks are overemphasized -- people should really only use them if they can't understand anything in class.

swimmer11 wrote:How do you already have a midterm? It's September 10!

Right?

His reasoning was: "Last year students wanted more feedback on their progress. This year I will give two midterms!"

I thought this was lawl school.

So I did not do amazing in Civ Pro, but our prof had it out for the Anderson v. Liberty Lobby case. So in that class, as BS as this seems, students did better who were creative in applying that rule, rather than using it as a way of reaching an obvious conclusion. It is hard to explain, but basically you needed to either use the Prof's policy reasoning as to why the case sucked, or do a really really stellar job analyzing it under the case's rule.

In my Torts class, our Prof has a weird way of outlining the intentional torts. Like, broke down each tort's elements into baby steps in a way the E&E never did. If you did not analyze the issue according to the professor's approach, you missed a shitload of points.


On a side note, Profs that give multiple midterms are kidding both themselves and you. I had this happen in a class last year... The first midterm was graded by 3 weeks before the final, and we never saw the 2nd midterm... A huge disappointment/frustration.

It's hard to give a concrete example but one from Civ Pro that I recall was the professor summarized what each of the opinion's/justice's said/argued/held in the Stream of Commerce cases. If you read the book or look up other people's opinions of what they meant, you would get something that facially, appears the same, but in reality is not. I crushed the essay question on that because I wrote down exactly what the professor said in class on the essay.

Maybe not civ pro, but things like "course of employment" vs. "scope of employment" can nail you if you aren't careful. Also, "worker's compensation" not "workman's compensation," things like that. Depends on the prof.

Yes, this is very important.

To answer your question, there is a 95% chance that your professor's view on minimum contacts will vary with nearly everything you read.

Here's one example: In Property, the professor, at least once a week, used the phrase "General proscription with a specific exception." Around the third time she said that, I wrote it in all caps, underlined it, and starred it. If you keep hearing the prof say something, make a note of it, if only because it's a shorthand way of saying something the professor wants you to know about (even if you don't actually understand all of the nuances).

And, I don't think it's as often a matter of theoretical differences with the casebooks as it is an idiosyncratic way of expressing an idea the casebook calls by a different name.

Hornbook: Negligence has 4 elements (Duty/Breach/Causation/Harm)

Professor: Negligence has 5 elements (Duty/Breach/Actual Causation/Legal Causation/Harm)

Your analysis is framed around the professor's 5 elements. Apply this thinking to anything you see in class that differs from what you read in a book. Boom.

(Edit: On a technical note, the 4v5 element debate above is largely organizational - you discuss the same issues either way. 4v5 gives you a framework of discussion).

Got it. Thanks guys!