Top Law Schools

Im a 1L, and Im beginning to transition from "just reading" to actually "studying." E/Es, outlines, hypos, etc. Ive read Getting to Maybe, but, honestly, Im having a hard time identifying actual forks. Ive certainly found a few, and the law is obviously/logically full of them, but Im wondering if there is a source (or a TLSer) that can help me out. Anyone have a short (or long) list of forks? Or is there a good supp? I'd like to EXPLICITLY work them into my outlines.

Obviously Im not looking for a comprehensive list... Just for some guidance.

ETA: civpro, torts, and contracts specifically. Con, property, and crim are next semester.

The forks don't necessarily present themselves in the law alone. You won't find them until you begin applying abstract facts to the law. Thus, work a bunch of problems. When you have those "ah-ha" moments upon encountering a unique exception to the general rule, put it into your outline. Many times, your prof has hinted at these weird exceptions in class. Hopefully you've been paying attention.

There is no list of forks. Professors spend a lot of time always thinking of new ones.

MapsMapsMaps wrote:Im a 1L, and Im beginning to transition from "just reading" to actually "studying." E/Es, outlines, hypos, etc. Ive read Getting to Maybe, but, honestly, Im having a hard time identifying actual forks. Ive certainly found a few, and the law is obviously/logically full of them, but Im wondering if there is a source (or a TLSer) that can help me out. Anyone have a short (or long) list of forks? Or is there a good supp? I'd like to EXPLICITLY work them into my outlines.

Obviously Im not looking for a comprehensive list... Just for some guidance.

ETA: civpro, torts, and contracts specifically. Con, property, and crim are next semester.

Fork: X does Y and facts make it unclear he fulfilled element 1,2,3, or 4 for claim X... Discuss both routes.

Gorki wrote:Fork: X does Y and facts make it unclear he fulfilled element 1,2,3, or 4 for claim X... Discuss both routes.

Absolutely, this one makes sense for sure.

Mce252 wrote:The forks don't necessarily present themselves in the law alone. You won't find them until you begin applying abstract facts to the law. Thus, work a bunch of problems. When you have those "ah-ha" moments upon encountering a unique exception to the general rule, put it into your outline. Many times, your prof has hinted at these weird exceptions in class. Hopefully you've been paying attention.

There is no list of forks. Professors spend a lot of time always thinking of new ones.

The forks in the facts make sense, but I guess Im looking more for forks in the law. I should have specified.

Off the top of my head, in torts:

P gets shot while hunting with D1 and D2. Either D could be liable, but no way of knowing. (ie, Summers v Tice)

FORK:
-If joint enterprise - joint/several liability
-If not joint enterprise - alternative liability

My profs have been mentioning them they are easy to miss because at least in my school they don't mention them at all. Just some things i've been doing is anytime I hear the words majority/minority old rule/new or these cases don't exactly coincide together something to that effect I write them down immediately. My torts prof has done this numerous times and a lot of the time they are not things that the cases will explicitly say. I use them on the hypos that I practice with.

Just a 1L but thats sort of my take. Anytime that I hear something that resembles something they talked about in GTM I immediately wright it down for future use. HTH

Examples of forks in the law:

Asahi, stream of commerce, "purposeful availment" etc.

How much is needed for "continuous and systematic"?


In general, the easiest way is to pay attention to the dissent.

MapsMapsMaps wrote:

Gorki wrote:Fork: X does Y and facts make it unclear he fulfilled element 1,2,3, or 4 for claim X... Discuss both routes.

Absolutely, this one makes sense for sure.

Mce252 wrote:The forks don't necessarily present themselves in the law alone. You won't find them until you begin applying abstract facts to the law. Thus, work a bunch of problems. When you have those "ah-ha" moments upon encountering a unique exception to the general rule, put it into your outline. Many times, your prof has hinted at these weird exceptions in class. Hopefully you've been paying attention.

There is no list of forks. Professors spend a lot of time always thinking of new ones.

The forks in the facts make sense, but I guess Im looking more for forks in the law. I should have specified.

Off the top of my head, in torts:

P gets shot while hunting with D1 and D2. Either D could be liable, but no way of knowing. (ie, Summers v Tice)

FORK:
-If joint enterprise - joint/several liability
-If not joint enterprise - alternative liability

You've already applied facts to the example you just gave. My point was that there was a rule of law for who is liable when you shoot someone. However, the facts create an exception because there are two specific sources of gun shots, but only one of the could have done it. Thus, remember the different ways to handle this.

Starting with the forks is probably not the best way to study. Start with the basics in each area and build your way out. By the time you have a fundamental understanding, you can then dig into weird exceptions.

If this stuff isn't in your notes, a good outline of the course from a previous student is the best way to go.

A good one for torts is duty to trespassers/invitees/licensees vs. duty of reasonable care for all generally. Within that you get a vague fact pattern and you have a smorgasbord of legal results.

rad lulz wrote:

There is one fork in there with the spoons and it pisses me off.

rad lulz wrote:

Scooped, but still:

In the matrix, the trick is that there is no spoon. On a law school exam, the trick is that everything is a fork.

Example: Under tort law, ultrahazardous activities are evaluated under a strict liability as opposed to a negligence framework. If you're taking a Torts exam, there is a decent chance you won't see any arguably ultrahazardous activities (i.e. it just won't come up as an issue to spot), a decent chance you'll see arguably ultrahazardous activities (i.e. a "fork in the facts" where arguments can be made either way), and close to a 0% chance that you'll see something which is clearly and unambiguously an ultrahazardous activity.

So your first task is to "spot" the issue, then next you have to reason out how much weight the arguments on each side have - and how much weight they have on answering the question at hand. As a lawyer you'll get paid to find arguments even when they're a stretch, and on a law exam you should be doing the same with the caveat that the bulk of the points (and thus your discussion) will revolve around the more obviously grey area/middle of the road cases.

When a law professor writes a fact pattern, they're generally trying to jam as many grey-area facts ("forks") as possible. Clear forks in the law are less obvious and harder to test on, but majority/minority rules exist and sometimes you won't be sure which to apply.

any forks in Con Law or is that just applying the 3-5 questions in due process and EP?

redsox550 wrote:any forks in Con Law or is that just applying the 3-5 questions in due process and EP?

Con law is one giant fork. "If the court applies the test set forth in _________ then __________, but if the court instead adopts the reasoning of the ________ decision which is similar to the current case because ______ then it will reach _________ outcome. It is above my pay grade to predict what SCOTUS will do, but I certainly don't put playing dice with the universe beyond them."

thesealocust wrote:

redsox550 wrote:any forks in Con Law or is that just applying the 3-5 questions in due process and EP?

Con law is one giant fork. "If the court applies the test set forth in _________ then __________, but if the court instead adopts the reasoning of the ________ decision which is similar to the current case because ______ then it will reach _________ outcome. It is above my pay grade to predict what SCOTUS will do, but I certainly don't put playing dice with the universe beyond them."

Love it.

Anyone have any concepts, rules, standards, etc that are conducive to flowcharts? I made and verified a personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, and battle of forms. Anything else from Contracts or Civ Pro would be especially useful. Torts is easy.

MapsMapsMaps wrote:Anyone have any concepts, rules, standards, etc that are conducive to flowcharts? I made and verified a personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, and battle of forms. Anything else from Contracts or Civ Pro would be especially useful. Torts is easy.

UCC Remedies in a flow chart is the greatest thing on earth.

swimmer11 wrote:

MapsMapsMaps wrote:Anyone have any concepts, rules, standards, etc that are conducive to flowcharts? I made and verified a personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, and battle of forms. Anything else from Contracts or Civ Pro would be especially useful. Torts is easy.

UCC Remedies in a flow chart is the greatest thing on earth.

let's see this magical flow chart

Bump