Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Best study aids for Evidence & Con Law?  (Read 6241 times)

big - fat - box

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
    • View Profile
Re: Best study aids for Evidence & Con Law?
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2009, 11:14:32 PM »
I used the Evidence E&E and did well in Evidence. Other than that I just used the fed rules,  my class notes, and some materials the prof gave out. The other guys who said it's essential to actually work through the E&E questions to get the relevant info are absolutely correct. The whole E&E series is like that. If you try to use it like a dictionary to just look things up it's not going to be very useful.

Bizarro Jerry

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Best study aids for Evidence & Con Law?
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2009, 11:12:50 PM »
If your prof is using Chemerinsky's casebook, you probably don't need the supplement IMO.  Just read all the notes/whatever around the cases in the casebook.  The casebook lays out the BLL pretty well.

Do others agree that TITCR?

I just found out that my professor will indeed be using Chemerinsky's casebook...is there a sufficient overlap in the explanations in each that the supplement is unnecessary?

jsb221

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Best study aids for Evidence & Con Law?
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2009, 10:53:23 AM »
There is substantial overlap but there is also new material in easy to understand terms. If you are struggling, it can definitely help fill in the gaps. I used it here and there but not regularly. In fact, I found my prof actually hit on some things in the supp but not in the casebook. Just my experience.

UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: Best study aids for Evidence & Con Law?
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2009, 12:21:33 PM »
There is substantial overlap but there is also new material in easy to understand terms. If you are struggling, it can definitely help fill in the gaps.

I agree.