And that's what professors are doing when they give you crazy hypos and have you try to work it out yourself.
Seriously. I am glad some of you don't brief cases. Helps separate the wheat from the chaff.
My ideal class would probably be no more than the prof asking for the name of the case and the basic facts and then asking for the issue and rule developed. The rest of the time could be spent covering the real world application of that rule and hypos built around it to spur our brains and stimulate the ability to "think like lawyers".
However, even when it is done right, people still complain. "why does the prof keep giving an example, and then change one fact? That's such a waste of time." I hear it at least once a week. Changing that one fact is usually key to understanding the "real world application," as you put it. By leading you, via questions and hypos, to understand why that one fact makes a difference is where the value of coming to class lies. Assuming, of course, you have a good professor.