im about to finish my first year. i think that everything this dude has said totally true - FOR HIS SCHOOL. what i mean is, in my school, there is no way i could have gotten away with just using supplements. the questions the profs ask can only be answered, usually, in the text of the case. I'm not saying that ALL the questions they ask are specific to the text of the case, but most are. For example, the profs no doubt will ask somewhere in their questiong, the holding, the rule, etc. - and for those questions using a supplement is fine. however, it has been my experience that profs also ask questions such as, "what was the plaintiff's argument? what did they base it on?" etc, and, for the most part, commercial supplements do not break down the material this far. Further, most of my profs, and i heard this is a growing trend in law schools throughout the nation, place an emphasis on class participation. For instance, in 3 of my classes, the prof has told us if we come to class unprepared they will knock our final grade down by one full letter grade - and if it happens a second time, they will tell us to leave the class and not let us take the final. I have several other friends in other law schools who, while not the same threat, have encountered similar thing.
On a side note, one of the great tools u develop in law school is the ability to read and synthesize the material. By not reading any cases and basing ur outlines totally on supplements, u r robbing urself of developing this ability. Furthermore, what are you gonna do when u actually pass the bar and have to practice? Lawyers dont memorize the material, for the most part, they are required to, after having been approached by a client with a particular issue, to research the relevant case law and decide what will support the position they are hired to take. By not developing this ability in law school, to read a case and know what the hell is relevant and what is not, you till be at a severe disadvantage when u begin to practice.