But that savings could be well worth it if you are able to read around all the markings and highlightings of others. If you are one that turns in your books for credit at the end of the term used may be the way to go as well. I myself keep all my books and try to buy new when I can. Here are some questions to ask yourself when considering whether to buy new or used:

• Will I keep my books or return them for credit at the end of the term? If you plan to keep all your books for reference you may want to go with new.
• Will the markings of other students be too distracting to my studies? If you can overcome the mass underlining and highlighting of other law students then go with used.
• Do I plan to book brief? You never know what grade the student got in the class when you buy his/her used book. If you want to book brief, go with new.
• How are my finances? If you can afford it you may want to go new.
• Am I a perfectionist? Go with new.

All in all the information is the same in every book. But for some the difference in new or used can be a big one. God bless and have a great day.

It depends on what you consider the word study to mean.  In law school there is really no such thing as “cramming” for the exam.  That being said you should probably begin studying early on in the term.  But again, what does it mean to study?

There are certain things that must be memorized such as the elements of battery or the relevant factors to consider when deciding the level of scrutiny to apply to a discrimination case.  But the study of law is more; it is the analysis of fact patterns according to established principles of precedent.

Memorization is pretty straight forward.  You simply must learn the elements or rules.  This is something that you should begin to do as soon as possible.  At the end of the term there will be an overwhelming amount of information to learn in a short time if you procrastinate.  As for the areas that do not involve rote memorization you are probably studying and do not even realize it.  One of the definitions of the word study according to Merriam Webster’s online dictionary is “to read in detail especially with the intention of learning.” You are studying by simply reading your material in a critical manner.

If you pay attention to what you are reading and the reasoning the court is using to apply the law to the facts you are studying.  A few weeks before the end of the term you should have enough knowledge that a review of your notes should refresh your memory of what you have learned.  One of the best ways you can ensure that you have absorbed the knowledge you will need on the exam is to review past exams (if your school posts them) and to create your own hypotheticals and work through them in a well-reasoned manner.  This will cement the concepts in your mind and prepare you to handle the hypotheticals on the exam.

Studying in college usually meant nothing more than a lot of memorization.  In law school it is much more.  The best way to study is to read each case critically; understand what the court was doing and why; and brief each case.  In so doing you are training your mind to think like the court.  When you think like the court thinks you will be more apt to properly apply the law to the facts on an exam and be able to reason through your analysis.

God Bless and have a great day.

The theory goes “why should you read all those cases when all you really are concerned with is the rule of law that will be tested on the exam?”  This is very poor thinking.  I am not saying that ready-made briefs and commercial outlines are not without their place, I use them.  But I would never suggest that they are a substitute for doing the actual work.  If you use them at all use them as a supplement to your traditional studies.  The rule of law is not the reason for reading and briefing cases.  The reason for doing your own reading and case briefing is so you can learn to think like the judges are thinking.  Not to sound cliche’, but the learning really is in the journey rather than the destination.

By reading cases you get a feeling for the reasoning behind the decision of the judges.  This is the key to understanding what law is all about.  Simply knowing a rule of law will not get you very far unless you live in a vacuum where nothing ever changes (not likely).  You may pass the exam, and you may even get an “A”, but what are you going to do when you graduate and must begin to really practice law?  Most likely you will have some very unhappy clients and perhaps a lawsuit or two, or three.

Shortcuts in law school are more like shortfalls.  Whether the 3L was just ribbing the 1L and trying to sound like some sort of über-student I cannot say.  But to some beginning law students feeling the pressure for the first time and the thought of reading hundreds of pages a week, the idea may be tempting.  This type of advice can be devastating in the long run.  Don’t take it.

Read each and every case.  Brief each and every case.  Analyze each and every case.  Know each and every case.  The key to being a great law student is not knowing the answer (because the answers will inevitably change) but knowing how you arrived at the answer.  If you know how you arrived at the answer then you will be prepared to analyze factual variations.  Moreover, you will be better prepared to construct your own succinct and persuasive arguments.  You are not in law school to get good grades.  You are in law school to learn the law (which is more than just a set of rules).  Good grades do not necessarily mean that you know the law.  Knowing the law, however, will generally lead to good grades.  God Bless and have a great day.

For example, suppose the issue is this: Was John’s snide remark coupled with his state of mind after his recent break up sufficient to show intent?  The conclusion should be more than just yes or no.  Supposing the answer of the court is yes you could write something like the following.  John’s snide remark coupled with his state of mind after his recent break up was sufficient to establish the requisite intent element for battery.  Basically you have just restated the issue in a different form, but it is a much better conclusion than just “yes”.  God Bless and have a great day.

As a non-traditional law student with six children I have often provided the age-old response when my kids question something I said.  “Because!”  This may work with children (yeah right), but it will not work with courts.  People want – and indeed need – to know why the court decided the way it did.  It ads veracity to the opinion and indicates that the opinion has its basis in something more than just a judge’s whim.

So, what is the analysis and how to you integrate it into your brief?  The analysis is the process the court used to apply the law to the facts.  Reasonable persons may differ in the application of the law, but if those persons can articulate their reasons in a compelling manner, others will have a firm grasp on why they opined the way they did.  It is of utmost importance to understand why the court ruled a certain way and why any dissenters disagreed.  The court’s opinion becomes the law (appeals aside) and it would behoove you to know why the law is what it is.  Let’s look again at John and Mary.

Suppose that John’s snide remark and the fact that his girlfriend just dumped him satisfied the court that he intentionally kicked Mary’s crutch.  Yeah, so what.  Just saying that seems pretty empty.  The real question is why do those facts satisfy the court that the requisite intent was there?  In the opinion (if this were a real case) the court would go on to explain why these facts show that John acted intentionally.  Sometimes it is not always easy to determine what the court was thinking, and you must re-read the opinion a few times to see it.  Sometimes (as dissenters often point out) the court will not give a satisfactory reason for its decision.  Nonetheless, whatever reasons it gives are the reasons you must put in the analysis section of your brief.

Courts put a lot of thought into opinions and generally everything in those opinions is there for a reason.  Always be thinking why the court is deciding the issue this way when you are reading.  Don’t get caught in the trap of substituting your own reasoning for that of the court.  Even if you are right, you are not the judge.  The analysis is that of the court, not you.

In closing:

• The analysis is the methodical way the court applies the law to the facts.
• It gives the reasoning for the way it chose to apply the law to a particular set of facts.
• You are looking for the way the court analyzed the case and not the way you perhaps would have.
• If you still wonder why the court decided the issue in a particular way then you don’t have a firm grasp on the analysis of the case yet.

The reasoning and analysis of the courts are what you will be drawing from when you are actually in practice.  Pay close attention to the details and understand why a court ruled the way it did.

John was about 6′3″ tall. He was strolling through the park one day wearing his red jacket and blue jeans. As he approached Mary, who was taking an afternoon stroll, he spewed a myriad of verbal insults at her and knocked her crutch out from under her arm causing her to fall and injure herself.

If Mary sues for battery John’s height may not be relevant because it is immaterial if he actually intended to kick the crutch and she was injured. But if Mary sued for assault his height may be relevant because it would tend to show that she felt an immediate threat of harmful contact because of the insults and his sheer height. If he was much smaller then perhaps she would not have felt the requisite imminent threat. The fact that John was wearing a red jacket may or may not be relevant as well. If John claims that it was not him then the jacket may be relevant as a form of identification. But if identity is not in dispute then it really is of no consequence what he was wearing.

When deciding which facts are relevant you must keep in tune with the “pace of the case”. Think to yourself if I did not know this fact would the court’s holding still make sense? If you answer yes then it is probably irrelevant. If you answer no, and the holding would not make sense without that fact, then it is probably relevant.

Of course facts only make sense when rules of law are applied to them. Generally, the court will tell you what rules of law apply in the opinion. However, if it were that simple all the time the case would not be in your casebook . Often courts will take an established rule and either restrict it or expand it by adding the ubiquitous “exception to the rule”. The court’s decision becomes the rule of law. State this rule in a clear and concise manner. Keep it as short as possible. A rule may be stated something like this: if the activities of the state substantially affect interstate commerce those activities are unconstitutional and are reserved to the federal government.

God Bless and have a great day!

The issue of a case is merely the problem or dispute between the parties involved. So the first thing you must do when spotting the issue is ask yourself “why are the parties in court?” Courts will sometimes sidetrack the real issue and attempt to make policy decisions that stray from the real issue at hand. Don’t get caught up in this exercise. Keep focused on why the parties are there.

Issues can very often be stated in a single sentence, and generally courts are focused on a single, specific legal issue, so look for the narrower problem in a dispute. Take the following for example.

Mary had just broken her leg and was walking in the park with the aid of crutches. John was coming toward her and made a snide remark.  Apparently, Mary looked a lot like John’s old girlfriend that just dumped him two hours ago.  As he passed her his foot caught the end of her crutch knocking it from under her arm. She fell and further injured herself. Mary filed suit against John for battery.

What is the main issue in the above example? Here are some possibilities:

• Did John’s act of knocking Mary’s crutch from under her constitute battery? While this is the broader issue, it is too general and not focused enough.
• Was John negligent when his foot caught Mary’s crutch causing her to fall? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares! A common mistake is getting sidetracked by reading into the facts things that are not there. Mary is not suing John for negligence. She is suing for battery. Even if John was negligent it doesn’t matter because that is not what he is being sued for. Don’t get caught making this mistake. What makes this point very difficult at times is that the court may very well talk about negligence in the opinion. But keep focused. No one is being sued for negligence, so it cannot be the issue.
• Did John knock out Mary’s crutch on purpose?  This sounds pretty good to me.  John had just been dumped by his old girlfriend.  He sees Mary and the experience is brought back to his mind.  He makes a snide remark.  All of these factors could be viewed as indicating that John became angry and took it out on Mary by kicking her crutch on purpose.  While the first option focused on battery in general, this option focused on one element of battery, intent.  Clearly all of the other elements have been met because there was contact that was harmful.  These are not issues to be decided.  The only real issue to be decided is whether John did it on purpose.

Remember, when you are issue spotting you must find out why the parties are in court and what they are suing for.  Don’t get sidetracked, and focus on the real problem.  See if you can refine the broader problem into a narrower, specific problem.  State this problem in a single sentence and you will have the issue for your brief.

• Issue(s) – What is the problem?
• Relevant Facts – What is happening?
• Rule of Law – What is the law to be applied?
• Analysis – How do you apply the law to the facts in order to resolve the problem?
• Conclusion – What is the result when all of the above are combined?

Does this look familiar? It is a modified IRAC system! These are the basic things you should include in your legal case briefs, but there are also some other things I find useful as well. If you can swing it you should also include dissents and opposing arguments.

Make sure you label each of these sections clearly and in logical sequence. You first must state the issue. Then state the laws or rules that apply to the issue. Next state the relevant facts and apply the law to those facts. Finally, state the conclusion or holding of the court. The holding is simply how the majority determined that the law applied in a particular situation as it relates to the legal issue at hand. Remember, there may be judges that dissent and do not agree with the majority. I believe it is very wise to include dissents in your brief. While the majority decides what the state of the law actually is, dissents often provide compelling arguments for what the law could be. This may make good fodder some day for arguing that a change in the law is reasonable in a particular case.

In the next few posts on legal case briefing we will be discussing each section in detail and what should be included (and excluded) in your brief.

There are basically two ways to brief a legal case for class: (1) paper briefing and (2) book briefing. Many consider paper briefing to be the more difficult of the two because it involves organizing the relevant parts of the brief on paper after you have read the case and made notes. A paper brief should contain the issue, relevant facts, reasoning, rule of law, etc… and should not be more than one page, even if your case is 20 pages long. If your brief is more than one page then you probably do not (generally) have a firm grasp on the material and what you are supposed to glean from it. Condensing a long brief down to one page can take considerable effort at times. And as all of us non-traditional law students know, time is a valuable commodity in high demand and short supply.

Book briefing is considered to be quicker and easier because you simply underline or highlight the relevant parts of the case and perhaps make a few notes in the margin. You do not need to take time writing out a separate paper and making revisions. However, the simplicity of a book brief can be deceiving, and most law schools do not recommend it at all during the first year and discourage it even after that. Book briefing can be quicker and easier if you really know what you are doing and what information you really need to know. If you are underlining every other sentence then you do not know what you are doing. One trap you want to avoid (especially on a long case) is thinking that if you have not underlined enough then you have not found everything you need to. This is rarely the case.

Most opinions are filled with dictum. The actual relevant points of law, facts, and reasoning that should comprise the bulk of your case brief are often short, concise and buried. Your job is to filter through everything and separate the relevant points from the rest of the opinion. Some professors will expect you to know huge amounts about the case, but most are looking to see if you actually understand why the case is in the book.

While some briefing methods are advocated more than others, the thing to remember is the basic purpose of the briefing process itself; to learn about the law. Choose the method for your legal case briefing that enables you to learn the concepts you are trying to learn in the most efficient and effective manner and stick with it. Remember, you are not only trying not to be embarrassed if the professor calls on you in class, but you are also preparing yourself for the bar exam.