Top Law Schools

So, after rummaging through many of my professors exams, I pose the following question, if someone would be so kind to clarify:

If the question at the end of a torts exam hypo is "Can charlie bring suit", is my professor not going to think I'm a huge moron if I just delve into Tom v. Nancy then Barb v. Steven before getting to Charlie?

Am I making any sense?

I recognize it could be very helpful in racking up points on a "discuss each parties liabilities" type of question, but in the aforementioned way, how would one apply it?

Please spare the "LEEWS" is garbage comments.

Many thanks

I think this could be just a waste of time. If he asks for X, and you give him X, Y, Z, LMNOP, I doubt he'll give you 'bonus points' for talking about more than was requested.

ETA: Dig deep instead of going broad. Write as much smart stuff as you can within the bounds of the question, but don't expand the scope just to talk about unrelated stuff.

Answer the question posed first. If you have time, get to everything else. You can blow a ton of points and sink your grade if you answer the irrelevant and don't have enough time to actually answer the question your professor posed. You professor will probably also think you're an idiot.

Thanks guys, Im realizing more and more I need to take bits and pieces of exam advice to put together a winning strategy.

If you're asked about Charlie, you need to start your answer with Charlie. This probably isn't included in leews because it's common sense.

Mal Reynolds wrote:If you're asked about Charlie, you need to start your answer with Charlie. This probably isn't included in leews because it's common sense.

Agreed.