How deep?

[O.B. Wan]

Ok, Im a 1L.  Just went to first day of class today.  I did all my reading over the weekend and briefed the cases I was assigned.  We really didnt do much in class today (Torts and Const Law).

Its probably too early to think this, but it doesnt seem that bad.  Reading the cases through, things seem to jump out at me a little to easy.

My concern is: How deep into the issues, and cases in general, should I be thinking??

Im sure Ill come to find out in the next few weeks, but it feels like Im not doing something.  Yeah the cases do get hard to follow, but it seems mostly because of restatements of previous ideas and theories already alluded upon by the judge, a lot of repetition.  The main points of the case appear pretty obvious, issues and rules (most of the time).

Im sure cases get more complicated and harder to disect, after all it is the first day.

But can some of you clue me in on just how thorough and in-depth I should be going into the reading?

Thanks

[pappahood]

all i can say is: balls deep.  j/k.  depends on the prof.  just don't waste time on issues and tiny facts that are unimportant.  easier said than done, i know, but its a skill that has to be learned on your own.

[giraffe205]

It's not really going to get "tough" until you have your first "real" writing assignment due for your legal writing class. Cases are generally pretty straightforward. What matters is where does that case fit into the suject area? Does the case have nuances that would make it inapplicable in a slightly different situation?

[eli250]

I'm seeing a lot of people at my school get lost in the facts of the cases, not caring about the real issues.  They write tomes for briefs and seem to really be wasting a lot of time.  It is the issues and rules that matter, right?  F

[agrooth]

I'm seeing a lot of people at my school get lost in the facts of the cases, not caring about the real issues.  They write tomes for briefs and seem to really be wasting a lot of time.  It is the issues and rules that matter, right?  F

You're right. Facts simply aren't that important for the exam in the end.

But facts become rather important for classroom discussion.

If you're like me and don't mind looking like a fool sometimes in class there is no need to delve too deep into facts of a specific case. But looking foolish in class means nothing once exams come around.

To me, the time spent to get deep into facts of a case isn't worth the payoff on the test.

[racheles05]

This depends upon the professor. I took an exam where the RELEVANT facts were important, but I've taken far more exams where the professor didn't give one care about the facts of cases, or even case names. They just wanted rules. It depends. The best thing to do, as corny as it sounds, is your best and talk to your professor about what he or she wants when it's closer to exams. The biggest waste of time is worrying about this stuff.

[tacojohn]

If you can understand the ruling, any facts that influenced it, what seems like the most compelling reasoning and a halfway-decent policy argument for why the judge did it, you're doing great for right now, and have enough to avoid looking like a fool.  And don't worry about other people's briefs.  I know a few people who took copious briefs on every case.  Some did very well.  Others never did a single brief.  Some did really well.  If making long briefs helps you, go for it.  It just takes a bit longer.

[O.B. Wan]

Thanks for the input.  Feels like every passing day something clicks.  Just got out of Torts and every point the prof got into I already had written down.  Yesterday I went back over some cases and just saw things from a different view, that I missed on the first couple passes.  Kinda exciting.  I cant wait to brief cases now!!