Going To Law School

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

the IRAC

i'm much more worried about jobs than I am about exams. I mean I know the two are related, but I figure exams are just kind of a one-shot deal -- study as hard as you can and hope for the best. No need to add extra stress to that. The job situation feels much more nebulous -- economy sucks, not even really sure what direction I want to go in, etc.

Does what I do my first summer matter much or is it more just how WELL I do at it?

YES oh god yes, the jobs thing. Even the top law review students at Carbozo are having trouble finding classic big firm gigs, from what I'm hearing. and one would say, "so what, I aint lookin for big firm gigs!". Guess where those kids are going? Add that to NYU and Columbia's decision to eliminate grades next year, and we've got ourselves a situation.

going back over prox cause now. Palsgraf is such a dumb case -- the dissenting judge completely blows Cardozo away.

It's like Eminem burning Jay-Z on Renegade.

I also need a pill that makes me stop worrying. :-{ I get about 2 hours of sleep a night now.

― burt_stanton, Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:01 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

they have these now u know

palsgraf is hilarious

I happened to read about a somewhat palsgraf-like case in the New York Law Journal recently (not that I read that shit on the regular) -- a guy who was trying to erect a construction sign sued a tractor-driver for driving by too fast, creating "wind gusts" that blew over the sign

I can't find my Blue Book. Any of you dudes know offhand how to cite committee notes on Federal Rules?

I think the most annoying part of writing these legal writing projects isn't the research ... or the writing ... it's plugging in all these damn citations.

no way citations are the best part. it's like "Int'l House of Pancakes of Greater Florida, Inc. vs. American Telephone and Telegraph, 42 F.Supp 185, 192 (6th Cir. 1998) quoting Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious Party Supply and Paper Products vs. United Electrical Workers Local 182, 984 F. Supp 150, 158 (6th Cir 1990)" -- sweet I already have a page!

hurting your bluebooking is atrocious

dude, I'm not going to bluebook a fucking ilx post

lol

oh for the days when you worried about filling a page

Erie Doctrine is just fucking me up. I keep re-outlining it and refining my outline, but it don't quite make sense. I think some how I'm not clear on whether Hanna has prongs or Hanna IS a prong, and what an "unguided Erie" analysis is

yeah, I'm going to crack down on the Erie Doctrine tomorrow. We're doing Semtek for interjurisdictional preclusion and so it's probably important to understand.

FWIW, there's a long Erie "flowchart" here:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/sba/outlines.html

I find it a little confusing so far -- like maybe it slows down the process too much. I'll look at it again after I've gotten some sleep.

www.law.georgetown.edu

If you're still wrangling with the Erie Doctrine, this chronological summary is pretty clear:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/civpro/civpro06.htm

Finals library marathon WOOT!

Actually I'm not going as hard as some yet. Did like 8 hours yesterday and will probably clock 8 today (plans for later). Tomorrow hope to do more like 12. First final is Wed, next one is the following Monday.

This is why Cardozo is a horrible school: because it's strict Jewish orthodox whatever, the library is closed on Fridays and Saturdays ... even during exams!!!! I can absolutely not work at home on this shit.

Also, torts exam: I'm screwed.

Torts is probably my best subject if you want to talk torts

What do we do with, like, the scope of risk analysis or the but-for analysis chart in actually answering these questions? Or the market share liability formula for dispersing compensatory damages through theory 1 but not theory 2 as covered in the Fordham Law Review August, 1963?

Our professor's a total turd and is making the exam closed book ... and he wants us to use all that theoretical shit :[

I couldn't any work done today because, without having a school library to go to... there is absolutely nowhere in New York City to just sit for hours! This place has no cafe culture.

http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10350

I couldn't any work done today because, without having a school library to go to... there is absolutely nowhere in New York City to just sit for hours! This place has no cafe culture.

― burt_stanton, Saturday, December 6, 2008 11:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lies!
besides, you can sit for hours anywhere, if you're smug enough

Hurting, what are your study techniques? I'm just re-reading all the cases since I barely remember most of them ... and of course reading a few of the cases I skipped :{

I mean, say it takes 8 hours to read through the first half of the syllabus, and another 8 hours to do the second half. How are you spending all these 12 hour sessions?

burt i recommend writing a couple sentences about each case, that's what i'm doing right now with int'l law. i find it doubles my efficiency of memorization, even if you can't bring it in with you.

I am ... I took the syllabus, am re-reading each case on it, writing out the principles of tort theory that each case utilizes, how it can be argued for or against, and then inserting class notes below that. I'm panicking because I read through a practice exam, and I have no friggin clue about anything it it! and the exam is Wednesday!

I still also need to study how scope of risk theory, but for causation, etc. etc. limits liability. Too many friggin formulas the professor gave us.

have you done practice problems like i told you to burt

also, that's more than 3 days away. it's funny how you can go from "i don't know anything" to "what else is there to know" in a few days, trust me.

I just grabbed them the other day. One I did well on, another I knew nothing... not a damn thing. If it were open book it'd be easy to utilize all these formulas and analytical theorem things.I mean, when you took a tort exam, how did you work scope of risk into it? Just analyzed a potential causation through the analysis?

what does scope of risk even mean? you mean like if i can be responsible for event A, that i caused, and event B, that was probably caused by event A occurring?

i thought it was about foreseeability? i can't remember specific stuff i just remember practicing being a huge help

Yeah, that stuff. the scope of risk analysis ... our professor spent a whole week on it during causation. It's used to mitigate liability or something or other ... by trying to understand the foreseeability of a wrongful act through x circumstances and y actions or whatever. I think it's part of the whole Palsgraf and related cases

Duty and special relationships are a pain in the ass, though. Any recommendations?

i dunno, the exam is not going to be about bright lines for the most part. if something is weird you just have to explain why you chose to say this person has a duty and move on using that yes or no as the answer. like i can't remember even what the rules are but if it's like some kid diving into the shallow end of a pool and it's a cousin that comes to visit you sometimes rather than your son that lives with you you might have to explain why you do or don't have a special relationship giving rise to a duty (like, do his parents also come to visit, is the understanding that you're in charge, etc.). this might be wrong but just as an example. use the little facts to compare it to a case where it would be more clear. you prob won't get it wrong if you explain why.

I guess I"m just panicking ... the professor said if we didn't know everything by Monday we'd fail. Urgh.

LOL I once slept in the library LOL

I'm currently rereading ... every ... single ... case ... on the syllabus. I'm jealous of the other students who basically remember everything off hand with their little outlines.

If our library was ever open I'd probably be there right now. :{

I hate torts. Contracts and Civ Pro, we're good to go. All this analyzing of whether or not somebody had a reasonable duty of care due to special relationship of protection over x defendant for knowledge of something or another and because of the scope of risk analysis says that some other guy did something which was clearly foreseeable and that due to the fungibility of an attached plaintiffs product the second theory of market share liability can be applied but not strict liability because negligence is appropriate for economic policy concerns uuuhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrr

Now I know what my professor meant that the only way for us to do well on the exam was to ask questions. We have to take the ideas we learned here, and create ... new stuff with them. Like, create a self-devised relationship of duty in a problem and then argue for its validity or invalidity in a problem. Too bad I spaced out in half the classes.

Is that what you guys had to do on your torts exams?

Ok, let's see.

As far as how to study, I like to just give myself blocks -- I write them out on a pad I keep next to me and schedule breaks in between. Three hours outlining (or refining my outline) on a topic, break, three hours reading and doing hypos from a Glannon book, break, three hours doing questions from an old exam, etc.

Have you tried actually writing out an exam answer for an old exam? I find that really helpful - big difference between just looking at something and thinking you know what's going on and actually trying to put down an answer.

As far as how to approach an exam answer, remember that your prof wants you to spot problems every step of the way. That means your job is not to say "no duty" and be done. Your job is to go to the duty stage, examine any arguments for/against limited duty, and then go on to say "If the courts don't do away with the case on limited duty grounds..." and do your breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, etc. (each step the same way, although obviously don't make something controversial if it isn't -- if A punches B in the fact on purpose and breaks his nose you don't have to make devil's advocate policy arguments about why the court might not find intent).

It's difficult to work on old exam questions because his exams are basically either one or two questions, and each question is about 5 single-space pages long, covering just about everything we learned, and each element is dependent on the other. If I can find Glannon tomorrow I might pick that up.

Right now I'm done with 50% of the syllabus ... just going through each case and rereading the damn thing and picking out all the good bits. The problem is, how to use these bits in order to create new, independent theories of tort liability? I mean, reading through these questions, nothing really resembles any of our cases ... but it's clear one could argue for against say, a duty. The professor said it's useless to mention any cases we read.