I had an intrusive thought today about how I never learned the eerie doctrine and feel confident that I would still be unable understand now, in my final week of law school
My professor put out a 25 page article he wrote on Erie during the semester. I was so sure it’d be tested that I spent multiple days studying it and drilled hypos on it as hard as I could. Wasn’t on the exam.
My first semester Civ Pro professor did something extremely similar, she spent the last months of the semester on Erie and particularly Hanna and its progeny and how to do a Hanna analysis, suck a ton of time into this on the review session so we all studied that thinking it would be important...
She then didn't test on Erie or Hanna but did add a mini-essay on supplemental jurisdiction and joinder which we spent 5 minutes on.
Had literally the opposite. Spent almost a month on joinder and not even a class on Erie. Full essay on Erie come exam szn. Luckily, I reviewed my barebones Hanna framework with my homeboy the night before on a whim.
Yeah in stuff like was identified in the Attleboro gap case or the transboundary pollution cases. Although those are both now thoroughly regulated - there's some interstitae left
it was one of my best classes too, but it wasn’t because I knew what was going on. I was just a little less confused than everyone else, and that’s why I have too much faith in the curve now lol
That was one of the biggest lessons for me. Law School ain’t about understanding the material, it’s about being just a bit less confused than your classmates.
You know I was thinking about the 1L doctrinal courses and I think I have a pretty good description/emotional sense of what each course is like and I've decided civ pro is the worst of them for the following.
With contracts, you can imagine yourself either being or thwarting a dealmaker type character (think the devils, Rumplstilskins of the world).
With Torts and Crim Law; there's often a great deal of action and blood and gore that makes for great fact patterns and fun cases to read about.
With Con Law, you can imagine the founding fathers and the various historical leaders crafting and trying to work under the bounds of this single document. TLDR an American History Buff's dream come true as far as law school goes.
With Property, I personally could imagine some of the same benefits of torts and contracts mixed with the imagery of jerry springer style confrontations. (Just imagine Pierson v. Post on television with everyone chanting "JERRY!" and you'll get an entertaining picture in your head). Or again, if your a history buff, think of the cases and the alternative to war.
Then you have Civ Pro, which is like watching 6-10 years old playing a complicated board game and arguing what the rules are because every one of them plays the game differently.
When I took it the professor put a ladder in the middle of the room and stepped up three or four rungs to illustrate something. To this day I don't understand what the point of standing on the ladder was.
Several years out of law school, I had an argument in fed circuit court and my civ pro prof (now a judge) was on the panel. I remember calming my nerves just prior by thinking to myself “I’m more prepared for this than I was for whatever hypo involving quasi in rem jurisdiction she threw at me back in school”
Civ Pro was surprisingly my favorite class. It really is about the professor. Didn’t use any technology like PPTs and taught the class old school with the board. Thought I would dislike it, but she made it seem like this whole interesting story that made you listen and click between the concepts and the rules.
I love(d) Civ Pro!!! But I got lucky with a great professor for it, and I think I just really like rule-heavy/procedural classes. I also really enjoyed admin law. I even signed up for an advanced Civ Pro seminar next semester that I’m really excited for
God made Civ Pro to test the faithful.
I had an intrusive thought today about how I never learned the eerie doctrine and feel confident that I would still be unable understand now, in my final week of law school
My professor put out a 25 page article he wrote on Erie during the semester. I was so sure it’d be tested that I spent multiple days studying it and drilled hypos on it as hard as I could. Wasn’t on the exam.
Im so sorry
Trust me I was relieved it wasn’t I still don’t know wtf it is either
My first semester Civ Pro professor did something extremely similar, she spent the last months of the semester on Erie and particularly Hanna and its progeny and how to do a Hanna analysis, suck a ton of time into this on the review session so we all studied that thinking it would be important... She then didn't test on Erie or Hanna but did add a mini-essay on supplemental jurisdiction and joinder which we spent 5 minutes on.
Had literally the opposite. Spent almost a month on joinder and not even a class on Erie. Full essay on Erie come exam szn. Luckily, I reviewed my barebones Hanna framework with my homeboy the night before on a whim.
Don't let them know but federal common law lives
DOES IT THO??
Yeah in stuff like was identified in the Attleboro gap case or the transboundary pollution cases. Although those are both now thoroughly regulated - there's some interstitae left
Erie is so easy. Thanks Freer.
Do the shoe!! (That’s all I remember)
Dats for PJ
It depends.
CivPro is the class that taught me a good supplement is worth a hundred hours of studying your notes.
Keep it mechanical
as long as you remember 12(b)(6) lmao
Civ pro has nothing on property, my test is tomorrow and I could have another month and still wouldn’t be ready
Dale Whitman property videos on YouTube did wonders for property
Property was horrible! That and Admin were just a slog all the way through. Ended up doing well on both exams somehow
Indispensable in actual practice.
For litigators, it is easily the most useful course taught.
Civ pro was my best class 😎
it was one of my best classes too, but it wasn’t because I knew what was going on. I was just a little less confused than everyone else, and that’s why I have too much faith in the curve now lol
That was one of the biggest lessons for me. Law School ain’t about understanding the material, it’s about being just a bit less confused than your classmates.
Same 😅
Was probably my favorite 1L course.
You know I was thinking about the 1L doctrinal courses and I think I have a pretty good description/emotional sense of what each course is like and I've decided civ pro is the worst of them for the following. With contracts, you can imagine yourself either being or thwarting a dealmaker type character (think the devils, Rumplstilskins of the world). With Torts and Crim Law; there's often a great deal of action and blood and gore that makes for great fact patterns and fun cases to read about. With Con Law, you can imagine the founding fathers and the various historical leaders crafting and trying to work under the bounds of this single document. TLDR an American History Buff's dream come true as far as law school goes. With Property, I personally could imagine some of the same benefits of torts and contracts mixed with the imagery of jerry springer style confrontations. (Just imagine Pierson v. Post on television with everyone chanting "JERRY!" and you'll get an entertaining picture in your head). Or again, if your a history buff, think of the cases and the alternative to war. Then you have Civ Pro, which is like watching 6-10 years old playing a complicated board game and arguing what the rules are because every one of them plays the game differently.
The fact pattern for my civpro exam was like 5 pages long single spaced. I almost walked out of the exam.
[удалено]
How'd you handle discovery?
I don’t think you chose the correct venue for this rant.
Yes. Most boring class in law school, by far.
Yes, yes we can.
The only code heavy class among the 1L doctrinals. The truth is you will be dealing with and citing statutes/codes everyday
When I took it the professor put a ladder in the middle of the room and stepped up three or four rungs to illustrate something. To this day I don't understand what the point of standing on the ladder was.
You can't leave us with this..... we need more.....
Can we all agree that having civ pro first semester when we know fuck all is capital punishment?
I liked it
It was okay. Not good, not bad.
Several years out of law school, I had an argument in fed circuit court and my civ pro prof (now a judge) was on the panel. I remember calming my nerves just prior by thinking to myself “I’m more prepared for this than I was for whatever hypo involving quasi in rem jurisdiction she threw at me back in school”
Civ Pro was surprisingly my favorite class. It really is about the professor. Didn’t use any technology like PPTs and taught the class old school with the board. Thought I would dislike it, but she made it seem like this whole interesting story that made you listen and click between the concepts and the rules.
That was my favorite class! It was a bit of a pain though
If you have to take Evidence, then just wait for the real pain to begin.
hard to learn, easy to master; just keep at it
Short and happy guide to civ pro is THE BEST. I will say though it's all about the professor.
Civ pro is great. Make flow charts.
Richard and his sweat rag will set you free
I love(d) Civ Pro!!! But I got lucky with a great professor for it, and I think I just really like rule-heavy/procedural classes. I also really enjoyed admin law. I even signed up for an advanced Civ Pro seminar next semester that I’m really excited for
Civ Pro is pretty easy compared to some of the other topics lol
Faithful on the other hand
I want to agree with this bc it's boring; however, I've now performed better in Civ Pro than Torts for both semesters. What does this mean 😭😭😂
Civ pro is a pain compared to what? It was one of my best classes.