is there any ez way of sifting thru all the junk of a case to get to the meat?
the 1st we were asked to do is marbury vs madisonnot as straight forward as i woulda hoped.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
Quote from: -> Yo da Blue on August 26, 2007, 11:48:33 PMthe 1st we were asked to do is marbury vs madisonnot as straight forward as i woulda hoped.You started law school, blueb? I thought that was next year.
Marbury v. Madison is a difficult case to start out with. Nonetheless, I think the best technique for understanding cases is just to read carefully a few times, the first time without underlining or highlighting (or only circling difficult terms), and then try to write a summary for yourself, checking back in on the case when you run into trouble. I can't offer a lot of advice about briefing because I think it is really a matter of what works for you personally (and because I do not brief myself), but just writing out definitions for terms the court discusses, a restatement of the holding in your own words, a few notes to remind you what the factual background of the case was, etc., is a good idea.
My first case was People v. Newton. I had to wait until the end of the class to point out it was, in fact, Huey Newton we were talking about.
Quote from: H4CS on August 27, 2007, 12:09:39 AMMy first case was People v. Newton. I had to wait until the end of the class to point out it was, in fact, Huey Newton we were talking about.At least 80% of the people in my class had no idea who he was. And people wonder why I'm so depressed all the time.
I had to Google him just now.
Quote from: Harrison Bergeron on August 27, 2007, 12:24:04 AMI had to Google him just now. Well at least you know your relative pronouns. Have a stab at correcting this thread's subject heading.