Top Law Schools

Is this beneficial?

no

d cooper wrote:Is this beneficial?

Wikipedia

Dude, no

If prof brings it up in class though, I'd write down the main holding/main point (s)he stressed

Beneficial? Yeah probably, but very marginally. A good use of your time, definitely not

muskies970 wrote:Beneficial? Yeah probably, but very marginally. A good use of your time, definitely not

Idk, seems like oportunity cost would outweigh benefit.

Br3v wrote:

muskies970 wrote:Beneficial? Yeah probably, but very marginally. A good use of your time, definitely not

Idk, seems like oportunity cost would outweigh benefit.

Probably true I know some classmates individuals would call gunners who did it and performed very well on exams although whether it's from reading the extra cases idk...
I agree probably better to just wiki them to understand the big picture

If you're talking about note cases (other cases referenced *in the casebook*, by the casebook author), I know some gunners read those and they can potentially be helpful. I thought OP was referring to other cases referenced *in the assigned cases,* which is really not going to be any use at all.

As was said above, completely unnecessary for cases being cited within cases. There are advantages to reading note cases after the main cases in some instances. I think in CivPro + Torts our note cases were useful in the exam, but you can figure that out by talking to people who had your professors etc.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:If you're talking about note cases (other cases referenced *in the casebook*, by the casebook author), I know some gunners read those and they can potentially be helpful. I thought OP was referring to other cases referenced *in the assigned cases,* which is really not going to be any use at all.

i thought she meant cited by the courts... in which case, fuck no, the seminal cases that are still relevant and get cited are in the casebook already.

that said, if you're actually struggling with something, reading a more recent district court opinion on the subject can help.

lacrossebrother wrote:That said, if you're actually struggling with something, reading a more recent district court opinion on the subject can help.

Can I ask why? (Sincerely)

because they summarize the law nicely, regularly.

lacrossebrother wrote:because they summarize the law nicely, regularly.

But wouldn't they only summarize the law for their jurisdiction/circuit? (No civ pro yet so sorry if stupid question)

Will_McAvoy wrote:

lacrossebrother wrote:because they summarize the law nicely, regularly.

But wouldn't they only summarize the law for their jurisdiction/circuit? (No civ pro yet so sorry if stupid question)

yea, but that's how you're taught law in class anyways. if there's a clear circuit split, the book will make it clear.

edit: where it might be confusing is rather than citing to scotus, they might cite to their circuit court adopting scotus. for instance, instead of McDonnell-Douglas, you might get like joe's stone crab in the eleventh circuit. but they're explaining the same law.

Gotcha, makes sense. Thanks for the tip.

Will_McAvoy wrote:

lacrossebrother wrote:because they summarize the law nicely, regularly.

But wouldn't they only summarize the law for their jurisdiction/circuit? (No civ pro yet so sorry if stupid question)

Just use a supplement.