So if we're not supposed to be briefing.... Forum

[SCThunder7]

What should we be getting/doing with the cases?

Many people on here, as well as every 2 or 3L that I e talked to at my school say that briefing is a waste of time. The first 2 weeks I did it anyway, and I feel so much more comfortable with how a case is formatted, what to except, etc. But it is taking way too much time if it's not really a beneficial or necessary study tool.

The one thing I'm a little confused about is what exactly were supposed to do if we're not briefing. Just pulling out the rule of law?

I guess maybe a better way to ask this is, when I walk away after reading a case, what is essential to know?

Thanks guys!

[kellyfrost]

Facts, procedural posture, rule, holding.

[BigZuck]

Basically you just need to know what/why your professor thinks is important about it

If your professor thinks the case is dumb/wrong that's also really good to know

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's not so much that you shouldn't take away from the case the things you'd take away while briefing, it's more that you shouldn't need to write them all out into some kind of document. Personally I just wrote things like "facts" "issue" "rule" in the margin of my book to know where they were in the case.

If I had to rank what you need to know, rule first - that's what you'll need to apply on the final. Basically that's agreeing with Zuck - what the professor finds important about it is probably going to be its rule (or maybe its exception to the rule or the like). Although if your prof is very policy-focused they may emphasize why a particular case is good/bad policy (but that will probably also require knowing the rule).

I never found procedural posture at all important in 1L. Basically everything you're reading is an appellate opinion. In practice, posture matters, but it doesn't come up on exams much (except maybe civpro).

[BigZuck]

I actually would "brief" during 1L, mostly in case I got cold called. I would read the case and then write a few sentences:

"Dude is at store and slips on a banana peel. Can he sue the store? Depends on whether the peel is green or yellow. If it's green then...but if it's yellow then..."

Stuff like that. The fact that it's being decided by the Maryland intermediate court of appeals doesn't matter. Also, the prof might want to go way into the weeds of the dude's motivations for even being in the grocery store, the name of the grocery store, etc. but that's just because law professors are literally the worst and they're just looking for ways to fill up class time in order to justify their existence whilst bilking tax payers for the hard earned dollars that the government foolishly gave away to law students to give away to the BLOODSUCKING VAMPIRES that are law schools.

[tomwatts]

Also, the prof might want to go way into the weeds of the dude's motivations for even being in the grocery store, the name of the grocery store, etc. but that's just because law professors are literally the worst and they're just looking for ways to fill up class time in order to justify their existence whilst bilking tax payers for the hard earned dollars that the government foolishly gave away to law students to give away to the BLOODSUCKING VAMPIRES that are law schools.

Lol. But tell us what you really think.

On topic: I actually briefed throughout 1L and most of the way through 2L because it helped me keep track of the relevant stuff. I don't have a particularly good memory for cases from reading the night before, so just having a short description in front of me when I got cold-called was helpful. My briefs basically boiled down to facts, procedural posture (minimally), reasoning, outcome. Basically, what happened before this go to the courts, what happened in the lower courts (to the extent that it helps understanding this court's opinion), what did this court say, and what did this court actually do? Sometimes I'd take a stab at articulating the issue/holding, but usually I'd wait until outlining after class to work that out (because what the prof thought it was was usually not what I predicted before class).

But my study method was pretty idiosyncratic (though effective for me).

[twenty]

Facts, procedural posture, rule, holding.

ftfy

[cavalier1138]

Facts, procedural posture, rule, holding.

ftfy

Is this actually the best way to have cases ready for exams, though? I defer to 2 and 3Ls here, but from what I know about issue-spotting exams, being able to distinguish a case based on its fact pattern can only help, right?