Memorization and confusion
I decided to spend less time rewriting outlines and focusing more on memorization. The one thing I learned about memorization this time around is that it is not enough to memorize the rule. I have to memorize the rule to the point where I can write it in an essay question without a second thought.
This brings up one thing about BarBri's books that pisses me off. They don't state the rules in a consistent manner. For example, one of their essay questions concerns false imprisonment. In the answer, the writer wrote the Rule portion of IRAC in this manner:
To establish a prima facie case for false imprisonment, plaintiff must prove: 1) an act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area, 2) intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain plaintiff, and 3) causation.
Whoever wrote this must have memorized the outlines or had an open-book test. Its a bit long to write, but it points out the elements and makes the analysis portion easier.
In another essay question, the author wrote a shorthand rule describing assault:
An assault is an affirmative act with the intent to place the plaintiff in an apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.
Now lets go back to the false imprisonment example. If I were to write it in shorthand, it might look something like this:
False imprisonment is an intentional act that causes plaintiff to be confined to a bounded area.
Another essay question dealt with negligence. In the answer, the author used the short method: Negligence is the breach of a duty of due care which is the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. This is a lot easier to write, and this method would work if the writer is proficient with negligence analysis.
If one were to write using the previous method, it might look something like this:
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plainiff must show: 1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the P against an unreasonable risk of injury, 2) Breach of that duty by the defendant, 3) That the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of the P’s injury, and 4) Damage to the P’s person or property.
Blah blah blah...
The point is, now that we are on the final stretch, it is best to stick with one set of rules. I just wish the people at Barbri would do a better job at doing it.
This brings up one thing about BarBri's books that pisses me off. They don't state the rules in a consistent manner. For example, one of their essay questions concerns false imprisonment. In the answer, the writer wrote the Rule portion of IRAC in this manner:
To establish a prima facie case for false imprisonment, plaintiff must prove: 1) an act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area, 2) intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain plaintiff, and 3) causation.
Whoever wrote this must have memorized the outlines or had an open-book test. Its a bit long to write, but it points out the elements and makes the analysis portion easier.
In another essay question, the author wrote a shorthand rule describing assault:
An assault is an affirmative act with the intent to place the plaintiff in an apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.
Now lets go back to the false imprisonment example. If I were to write it in shorthand, it might look something like this:
False imprisonment is an intentional act that causes plaintiff to be confined to a bounded area.
Another essay question dealt with negligence. In the answer, the author used the short method: Negligence is the breach of a duty of due care which is the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. This is a lot easier to write, and this method would work if the writer is proficient with negligence analysis.
If one were to write using the previous method, it might look something like this:
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plainiff must show: 1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the P against an unreasonable risk of injury, 2) Breach of that duty by the defendant, 3) That the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of the P’s injury, and 4) Damage to the P’s person or property.
Blah blah blah...
The point is, now that we are on the final stretch, it is best to stick with one set of rules. I just wish the people at Barbri would do a better job at doing it.
