so how should i go about starting to make outlines? Forum

[sangr]

so ive been a complete mess reading and notes wise for the past few weeks.

my note taking itself is pretty horrible so i need to clean things up big time this weekend.

how did u do it?
did u just make a header for whatever topic yall were on "promisee reliance", and then
write the ruling on there?

im lookin over a bunch of em but just wanted to see how other people go about it

[09042014]

If your notes suck, don't even try it. Find someone else's.

[sangr]

i noticed most outlines i find dont have any cases on them, just the rules derived from it.. if i want to attempt to make some form of an outline throughout the semester should i take the path that some have suggested in that u write a basic one sentence fact and one for ruling?

i guess the actual name of the cases are irrelevant come end game?

[09042014]

i noticed most outlines i find dont have any cases on them, just the rules derived from it.. if i want to attempt to make some form of an outline throughout the semester should i take the path that some have suggested in that u write a basic one sentence fact and one for ruling?

i guess the actual name of the cases are irrelevant come end game?

It mostly likely depends on the professor. Some don't care if you name the case, some only care you get the facts from it. Some just want the rule and don't care about facts or rule.

Unless you know the prof doesn't care about the name, I'd mention it, just in case. My Civ Pro profs rubric showed ~20% of the scoring was just naming the cases. You could fuck yourself from A+ to B- just by not doing it.


*Shit like this is why grades are somewhat arbitrary.

[sangr]

my professor seems to be policy oriented so I have a big question..

on the study guides on the site (which are great), they seem to lean extremely towards writing the elements of something (tort) and then only the rules that pertain to it.

I was lookin thru my notes and my prof says lotta stuff like:

1. England leaned towards strict liability and US with negligence due to its favoring entrepreneurship.
2. Defendants in D may have done nothing because they want to "self insure" as the cost of this is lesser than upholding a higher degree of care usually
3. why don't we impose strict liability on ------, when it is more efficient (supposedly) for society?

just judging from the outlines I've seen and the advice it's a bit unclear where to put these in my outline or notes as the general advocation seems to be stick with the "essentials", yet my
prof is always talkin bout this kinda stuff..

enlighten me please!!

[handsonthewheel]

my professor seems to be policy oriented so I have a big question..

on the study guides on the site (which are great), they seem to lean extremely towards writing the elements of something (tort) and then only the rules that pertain to it.

I was lookin thru my notes and my prof says lotta stuff like:

1. England leaned towards strict liability and US with negligence due to its favoring entrepreneurship.
2. Defendants in D may have done nothing because they want to "self insure" as the cost of this is lesser than upholding a higher degree of care usually
3. why don't we impose strict liability on ------, when it is more efficient (supposedly) for society?

just judging from the outlines I've seen and the advice it's a bit unclear where to put these in my outline or notes as the general advocation seems to be stick with the "essentials", yet my
prof is always talkin bout this kinda stuff..

enlighten me please!!

These should be background information you kinda carry around with you, it's fairly mathematical.

If you need to make enumerated bullet points with policy stuff like this, plopping it down at test time is not going to be convincing.

Figure out why this stuff necessarily makes sense and how it makes the world go-round, and maybe make a cursory note at the end of your strict liability section or something.

[LazinessPerSe]

Gettin' real basic here. I worry about what you people learned in K-UG that you can't figure out an outline.

[09042014]

Gettin' real basic here. I worry about what you people learned in K-UG that you can't figure out an outline.

who the fuck outlines in UG?

[NotMyRealName09]

Gettin' real basic here. I worry about what you people learned in K-UG that you can't figure out an outline.

who the fuck outlines in UG?

Dorks.

[LSATNightmares]

Ok, so here is what goes in.

If it's a black letter law class, you just put down the black letter law, noting where the relevant splits in the law are. I separate out my cases (usually put them all after a major topic) and summarize them in a parenthetical, usually one to two sentences capturing key facts to jog my memory and noting the holding.

If it's a policy-oriented class, I do the same thing as above, but I also put down various policy considerations.

If it's a class where case details really matter (Con Law, Contracts), don't organize it along black letter. Organize it along cases. Put all the key stuff under the cases, including what your professor says about them.

If your professor describes the elements of a tort in a certain way, don't even bother putting down what you find in a hornbook. People here on TLS focus too much on hornbooks. They are there to help you figure out policy or understand something you can't understand. They are also good for practice problems.

And of course, the best guidance is to get old outlines, a variety, to see how it was done for the particular class.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

If your notes suck, don't even try it. Find someone else's.

Is that really necessary? I don't have awful notes but I have some holes here and there. I was thinking that I could use supplements, the assigned cases, and the syllabus to make a decent outline. No?