What cases should 0L's start reading in preparation? Forum

[dresden doll]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

My mind is 100% blown.

Haha why do you say that?

The man asked " what book would you read to learn to fly a plane?" A bunch of trainee pilots answered, "don't, because you can't learn to fly a plane without actual lessons. You'll be wasting your time." Then you came in here and said, "well, I've never been on a plane before, but I have some aviator goggles, so I'll tell you how it's done."

<3 <3 <3 <3

[como]

Here is why you shouldn't read any cases as a 0L:

1) You'll have no idea what you're looking for, and you have no context to put the case in. Sure, you could use a commercial outline to 'get' the black letter, but you will have no idea
a) If your professor even wants you to read that case
b) What your professor thinks about the holding
c) How it relates to other cases
2) Even if you can somehow magically satisfy (1), although I submit that it is impossible for (1)(b), you will probably
a) Forget what you read OR
b) Think you understand it when you really don't, digging yourself into a hole that will be harder to get out of

I understand that if you even care about reading cases before school, you're probably an asshole, so you'll probably disregard and think you're going to set the curve. Ha.

[JazzOne]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

[2009 Prospective]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

I wouldn't even say those are the most glaring omissions for torts....

[como]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

I wouldn't even say those are the most glaring omissions for torts....

Vosney
Li
Carroll Towing
TJ Hopper
and, of course, Palsgraf

Those are just off the top of the dome in like 30 seconds.

[SamSeaborn2016]

I don't plan on reading any actual cases but I enjoy books about the law and the supreme court such as:

Closed Chambers
A People's History of the Supreme Court


I'm not going to pretend they will give me any kind of edge once I start school but the information is fascinating.

[Kohinoor]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

Just for contrast, I only read one of those and this is a field where it may actually be dangerous to learn things that you're not necessarily supposed to know.

[fonzerelli]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

Just for contrast, I only read one of those and this is a field where it may actually be dangerous to learn things that you're not necessarily supposed to know.

What do you mean by that?

[goansongo]

Try the curious case of Benjamine Button.

[como]

Try the curious case of Benjamine Button.

haha

[Kohinoor]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

Just for contrast, I only read one of those and this is a field where it may actually be dangerous to learn things that you're not necessarily supposed to know.

What do you mean by that?

Citing cases and precedents that are technically correct but not part of the source material for your particular course hurts your grade.

[Alexandria]

I'll answer this question, I'm only a 0L, but I am taking a sort of "survey of law" class and we obviously have to read (abridged) cases. So far we've covered torts and are starting contracts.

For torts, we read: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid; and Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois.
For contracts: Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods; Hamer v. Sidway; Sherwood v. Walker; and Hawkins v. McGee.

I can update as we get more cases assigned if people are interested.

I think this selection of cases for contracts is excellent. I read nearly all those cases before law school and then again in my contracts course. I am less enthusiastic about the list of torts cases. I haven't heard of those cases, and I don't see Summers v. Tice or Sindell v. Abbott Technologies.

I wouldn't even say those are the most glaring omissions for torts....

I could definitely be forgetting, bc it's been over 2 years now, but I don't recall reading a single one of those cases for torts or contracts.

[JazzOne]

Citing cases and precedents that are technically correct but not part of the source material for your particular course hurts your grade.

That's odd. Didn't seem to hurt my grades.

[Alexandria]

Citing cases and precedents that are technically correct but not part of the source material for your particular course hurts your grade.

That's odd. Didn't seem to hurt my grades.

I think it depends on the personality of the prof. I definitely had some for whom I consciously avoided mentioning anything the prof had not taught. Others for whom I doubt it would matter.

[JazzOne]

I mean seriously, Hamer v. Sidway and Hawkins v. McGee? These are famous cases. I really can't imagine how it would hurt you to read either of those. They have their own wiki pages for those cases because they are so ubiquitous in casebooks.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that you cite this shit on your finals. I'm just saying that reading caselaw is not a waste of time for someone who wants to succeed in law school. I found it to be very interesting even as a 0L.

[JazzOne]

I mean seriously, Hamer v. Sidway and Hawkins v. McGee? These are famous cases. I really can't imagine how it would hurt you to read either of those. They have their own wiki pages for those cases because they are so ubiquitous in casebooks.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that you cite this shit on your finals. I'm just saying that reading caselaw is not a waste of time for someone who wants to succeed in law school and practice law.

In my book, Hawkins was used as just an illustration as to what types of promises we should enforce. As I understand it, the main issue is re: damages, right?

Casebooks put cases in the book for different reasons.

I agree. That's why I enjoyed Law Preview so much. They edited the cases presented in the book, and they had six different law school professors teach the various substantive sections. So you could kind of see how the cases fit into a larger perspective. I mean, I had Farnsworth as a teacher for a day. He wrote one of the casebooks that is used often at my school. I ended up reading at least half a dozen cases over the summer that came up again during the semester, and I read another half dozen cases that were cited to.

I'm not really trying to change people's minds on this issue. Everyone has his own way of studying and prepping. I'm mostly responding to the individuals who stated that it was "retarded" and "stupid" to prep as a 0L. After my grades came out last week, I think it would be ridiculous to say that my methods were retarded or stupid.

[2009 Prospective]

I don't plan on reading any actual cases but I enjoy books about the law and the supreme court such as:

Closed Chambers
A People's History of the Supreme Court


I'm not going to pretend they will give me any kind of edge once I start school but the information is fascinating.

I highly recommend "the Nine". It's a much more enjoyable read than Closed Chambers IMO.

[JazzOne]

I agree. That's why I enjoyed Law Preview so much. They edited the cases presented in the book, and they had six different law school professors teach the various substantive sections. So you could kind of see how the cases fit into a larger perspective. I mean, I had Farnsworth as a teacher for a day. He wrote one of the casebooks that is used often at my school. I ended up reading at least half a dozen cases over the summer that came up again during the semester, and I read another half dozen cases that were cited to.

I'm not really trying to change people's minds on this issue. Everyone has his own way of studying and prepping. I'm mostly responding to the individuals who stated that it was "retarded" and "stupid" to prep as a 0L. After my grades came out last week, I think it would be difficult to say that my methods were either retarded or stupid.

Well, but there is something different between reading as part of Law Preview, and independent reading on the matter. You were guided. You were at least nudged into seeing how each case applied to the doctrine. Reading cases in a vacuum would be rather pointless.

Point taken. I'm just reluctant to mention LP too much because of the vehement criticism on this board. For me, it was very informative, and it helped me get back into school mode after a very long hiatus.

[JazzOne]

I don't plan on reading any actual cases but I enjoy books about the law and the supreme court such as:

Closed Chambers
A People's History of the Supreme Court


I'm not going to pretend they will give me any kind of edge once I start school but the information is fascinating.

I highly recommend "the Nine". It's a much more enjoyable read than Closed Chambers IMO.

I've been meaning to read that. I frequently buy books from the law section, but I keep skipping over that one. I recently bought a book by Scalia called Making Your Case. I'm enjoying it, but I wouldn't recommend it for a 0L. He talks about things like standards of decision that I wouldn't have understood without a semester of law school.

[Kohinoor]

Citing cases and precedents that are technically correct but not part of the source material for your particular course hurts your grade.

That's odd. Didn't seem to hurt my grades.

Then you hit the relevant points with time to spare. My statement was based on the premise that time spent writing irrelevant stuff worth zero points could have been spent writing something relevant.

[SamSeaborn2016]

I don't plan on reading any actual cases but I enjoy books about the law and the supreme court such as:

Closed Chambers
A People's History of the Supreme Court


I'm not going to pretend they will give me any kind of edge once I start school but the information is fascinating.

I highly recommend "the Nine". It's a much more enjoyable read than Closed Chambers IMO.

Noted. I'll have to move it closer to the top of my list. I'd planned to get it at some point. Thanks!

[Jones, Dow]

my .02

if you don't have experience reading judicial opinions, i would look some up and read them. don't read them to "prepare" for your classes, but read them to familiarize yourself with them and get an idea of what a typical opinion is like. if you are really ambitious you could even start looking up terms you don't understand in a legal dictionary.

another thing I would recommend--highly--is to get a background of the classes you are going to take. E&Es are decent for some, but even better, I think, would be the Understanding series:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cri ... 489&sr=1-2

or this series:

http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Case-Ana ... 567&sr=1-5

They both have books in nearly every subject.

Oh, the concise hornbook series is pretty good too.

The best analogy I have heard (in this great post, actually: http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html ) is that learning the law through a casebook (and classes, for that matter) is like learning a city by being plopped down on one of the streets and walking around to figure it all out. Reading the books I linked to is like studying the map before you're in the streets. Don't outline these books or anything stupid like that, just read through them, maybe jot down some notes, and try to get a sense of what the subject is all about. I promise you that it will only help.

Two other suggestions I have would be to (1) brush up on your economics or read an intro to econ book if you don't have any econ experience (not a text book, but something that will help you understand the simple principles), and (2) read a book on legal writing by Bryan Garner. The Elements of Legal Style, Legal Writing in Plain English, Garner on Language and Writing are all pretty good for this.

People who say you're just wasting your time if you study as an 0L don't have much of a basis for saying that, in my opinion. It's not like something magical happens on day 1 of law school that suddenly makes you able to study the law. You're as smart now as you're going to be on day one of law school (most likely, I guess), and most of the professors that write the intro books are probably better than the professors who will be teaching you next August anyway.

[let/them/eat/cake]

You have lost your goddamn mind. I'm a 1.5L, and I don't read the cases.

+1.

[SoxyPirate]

most of the professors that write the intro books are probably better than the professors who will be teaching you next August anyway.

Chemerinsky ain't got shit on Romero.

[Borhas]

reading cases is a way to get behind! If you notice from a lot of the top "how to succeed in law school" guides around here. Most say dont read/brief ANY cases.

If you believe that, you're insane.

Its a good thing the TLS "Success in Law School" article recommends not briefing cases. Not disagreeing with you. I'm a 0L and don't know shit. Just saying....

I do not recommend briefing cases. If I am assigned a fifty-page reading in contracts, I will treat it differently than the rest of the class. The rest of the class will go home and read all fifty pages. They will brief all cases, and spend a lot of time taking notes, highlighting, and writing in the margins. They will spend some time thinking about some of the proposed line of questions.

I thought Wahoo1Ls post on this topic was pretty solid (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=78769)

Wahoo1L's post, along with Arrow's post are nothing short of Baller Status