Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache
Quick question about pulling important info out of cases. What else should I be looking for with regard to what the reasoning was behind why the rulings came out the way they did:
-Precedent
-Current statute
-Public policy (including economic advantage)
Are there more major categories I'm missing or am I just fucked for being subject to the whim of my professors' hypotheticals? I pretty much never feel like I've actually considered EVERYTHING, and that feels like a pretty big flaw.
I was sure I had everything accounted for the other day (agreeing with the opinion), only to have the professor invent some ridiculous argument for the other side that almost started making sense because he was better at arguing it than me. At the end of class he eventually gave in and confessed to agreeing with the majority. How the shit do you develop the skill of learning to think about things you don't already think about?
|
Some of it is simple development of the concept. So a little history is maybe worth knowing so when you're an old fuck like AP you can say, remember back when we used to get two sets of interrogatories? You might see a pattern develop in where you spend a little bit of back ground time before getting into the meat and potatoes. That's in most classes. Example personal jurisdiction has been going on for fucking forever. So there's more to talk about. 12(b)(6) dismissal is still kind of new relatively. Don't know if you got to Palsgraff yet in Torts, if I read it today, I could repeat most of it back. But fuck if I could tell you what it was about. I'd probably guess "personal responsibility on a train platform." But it's a bizarre case that get's into proximate cause and forseeable plaintiffs etc. It goes in all sorts of directions. And hopefully all of those conflicting ideas get cleared up in the next few cases. Proximate cause because a little more clear, forseeability is easier to predict.
Don't get too bogged down on public policy, etc. for rationalizing these. Just keep in mind how the fuck can you be tested over the holding in pennoyer on an essay case? Or better yet, on a scantron? Given a fact pattern, you need to know what's the [b]
current[/u] law applicable to the fact pattern in December. Keep in mind how can you be tested over this.
Now to be fair, you have no fucking clue. You've never seen a law school final exam stuck in front of you. Here's the scoop for the first time. It's slightly more difficult than taking the LSAT cold. I had a multiple choice exam for civ pro as my first final. It wasn't really that taxing intellectually. If I had all day I probably would have come close to acing it. But the fact of the matter is that I had 4 hours to take the exam. The exam was 650 multiple choice questions and over 200 pages long. No body could fucking finish it in 4 hours. Expect to be pushed to decide and decide quick in your first year. To that extent, you need to hit the softballs out of the park, because your classmates will. Focus on the big picture. There's a lot you don't know yet, but as you go it will make more sense. For example, unless it's case specific to what you went over in the case book or class, don't get bogged down in facts. It's hard to give you a fact pattern over 12(b)(6) unless you know from facts in a case that it's something that relief can't be granted. The bulk of what is important is what you'll spend the least amount of time on. Some things are very mechanical. Just something to store away on 12(b)(6), most of the time it starts with a state pleading --which is typically notice (read: vague) Plaintiff's Petition that gets removed to federal court. Many times the state pleading are insufficient on a federal standard. So the Plaintiff has to amend the Petition if they choose not to remand or the remand is denied. But as a practical matter, the Plaintiff can allow the case to be dismissed and refiled in State Court by cutting out the federal question (if that was cause for removal on several causes). Or to be prudent, cut out the fed question in amended petition and then ask for a remand. DIGRESS: Discovery deadlines are discovery deadlines and you compute time the way the rules say you do for example.
Anyway short answer for your first semester: In order it's more important to know: Bizarre facts applied to Current statute; Rules; and the rest. In the rock, paper, scissors of the legal world, Statute crushes all else. Rules come next. For example (hypothetical). Statute saying venue for contract must be in place where contract entered into will always trump a rule of procedure that says it can be in the place where defendant resides. Statute saying you must provide the court with address of party trumps rule that says party must disclose address to other party in discovery. (these are actual Texas procedure vs. Rules).
Awe fuck it. AP have caught the drunked and goes to sleep now.