Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Synthesizing the MaterialCreating Useful OutlinesLLM PresentationOctober 6, 2015
What Is An “Outline”?
Process: Forces you to synthesize everything you know in one place
Product: An exam-taking, question-answering tool (most important!)
NOT the purpose
4 Possible Documents
• Long set of all notes
• Second set of basically chronological but edited notes (safety blanket)
• Test-taking outline (20-30 pgs max)
• 1-page topics outline
So, How Do I Create My Summary?
Do summaries at the end of each unit.
A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite
point in the future.
The Basics• Materials: syllabus, casebook, case briefs and notes,
perhaps a study aid
• Organizational structure: divide into units and hierarchy using materials
• Writing: summary of rules and examples of application
• Practice: using with issue-related questions
Organize by Topic—NOT by Cases
• Do NOT include mini briefs in outline.– Individual case information (facts, date,
parties, holding) is LEAST IMPORTANT information.
• “Chron” order not effective
• Mini-class summaries not effective
Analogical Reasoning = Classroom Skill
• Case A What about
• Case B Case D?
• Case C
• We talked about this type of reasoning during orientation when we discussed fruit.
Don’t use analogical for outline. Should NOT look like this:Outline Exam
• Case summary
• Case summary
• Case summary New Case
• Case summary
• Case summary
• Case summary
Move to Inductive Reasoning
• Analogical
• Inductive--taking lots of specific cases and creating a general rule.
• Deductive
Inductive Reasoning = Outline process• From specific to general
= 180
= 180
= 180
Rule: Interior Angles of all triangles = 180
Cases Synthesis
General Rules
A continuum
Offer: A communication that indicates to its recipient a willingness to be bound to the terms that it expresses which is complete enough and specific enough that the recipient can manifest acceptance by merely saying "I accept": communication must have DEFINITE AND MATERIAL TERMS that are clear enough that reasonable offeree would understand the communication to be an offer and not an invitation to make an offer.
Case ANOT an offer: a communication that’s too vague or ambiguous to constitute an offer; one that a reasonable person in the shoes of the offeree would understand to be a joke; one that lacks DEFINITE AND MATERIAL TERMS necessary to create the ability of the offeree to accept by merely saying “I accept.”
Offer Not Offer
Case A Case BCase C
Pre-Write the “R”/Roadmap the “A”
IRAC
Rules: Where Do I Get Them?
Application: Create A Formula to Follow
– If/then – Yes/No Questions– Flow chart– Elements, sub-elements – A continuum– Historical time chart
Flow charts
Is Demand Required?
No Excuse. Demand Required. Excuse. No Demand Required
Board approves proceedings. Case proceeds, supervised by court Decision on the Merits Board does not approve Proceedings
Court determines that plaintiff will not have opportunity to get hearing Court determines that Board was interested
Hearing on the merits
Process of Filing a Derivative Action
A series of questionsFormation: A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration to be binding.
I. Was there an offer?a. Did the purported offer make any sort of communication specific to the offeree?
i. If no, is there any chance that the purported offer is that rare type of communication to a nonspecific offeree that is either a reward or a first-come first-served advertisement for a specific good?
b. Did the offeror intend to be bound?i. If not subjectively, then was there nonetheless objective manifestation of intent?
c. Were the terms definite?d. (etc.)
II. Was there acceptance?
And so on . . .
Test your outline with practice questions
• Has your inductive reasoning creating general rules from all the small cases worked?
• Can you make correct and thorough deductions in response to a question using your formula (flow chart, questions, etc)?
• You don’t know if your outline is any good until you take practice questions.
Does outline help to answer the question?Enterprise L.P. is a limited partnership organized in a state that has adopted the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (1985). Its sole general partner is General Corporation. Spock is one of Enterprise’s ten limited partners. Spock is not an officer or employee of General.
Recently, the President of General has been ill, so Spock has been managing Enterprise’s business, making all business decisions that need to be made.
On December 1, one of Enterprise’s truck drivers negligently injured a pedestrian, Khan. It is clear that Enterprise will be liable to Khan.
Explain why Spock is not liable to Khan.
Not very helpfulLimited PartnershipsRevised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (RULPA) §303. Conditions of limited partner’s liability to third parties.Limited partners are only responsible up to extent of their investments and don’t have full control of management. • Note that LP acts have been revised to allow some role for
limited partners in management.Holzman v. De Escamilla (Cal 2d) (1948)• A partner can be considered a general partner in an LP if:
– Name is on certificate, represents himself as liable, takes part in management
• In this case, the “limited partners” were clearly involved in the management and thus should be treated as general partners. They could overrule general partner’s choice of crops to plant and had a direct role in finances.
First Draft of AnswerOriginal rule was that limited partners who got involved in “control” of entity were able to be found liable, like in the case of Holzman where LP’s were clearly involved in management because they could choose which crops to plant and were involved in finance, and were thus treated as general partners. (Why waste time talking about historical rule when not called for here?)
Modern rule is under RULPA 303 says LPs only liable up to extent of investment and can have some limited role in management without liability. (Need more targeted definition).
Spock was doing management but that’s probably allowed (what is standard exactly?) unless he met exception (need list of exceptions).
Slightly more helpful—formal rule statement• RULPA SECTION 303. NO LIABILITY AS LIMITED
PARTNER FOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OBLIGATIONS. An obligation of a limited partnership, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, is not the obligation of a limited partner. A limited partner is not personally liable, directly or indirectly, by way of contribution or otherwise, for an obligation of the limited partnership solely by reason of being a limited partner, even if the limited partner participates in the management and control of the limited partnership.
Even More HelpfulLimited Partnerships:
RULPA section 303 Modern Rule--liability shield for limited partner.
Eliminates “control rule”—no more personal liability for entity obligations, even if limited partner has management and control.
Exceptions:
*When others transact business with entity believing, based upon the limited partner's conduct, that limited partner is a general partner.
*When a third party asserts that a limited partner’s own wrongful conduct caused injury.
To Perfect Application: “Questions” Format
Limited Partnerships:
RULPA section 303 Modern Rule--liability shield for limited partner, eliminates control rule.
Did LP have “control?
NO: no personal liability.
YES: Then ask:
1) did others transact business with entity believing, based upon conduct, that the limited partner is a general partner? NO: No personal liability. YES: Possible personal liability.
2) Has third party asserted that a limited partner’s own wrongful conduct caused injury? NO: No personal liability. YES: Possible personal liability.
NO
Did LP Have Management or
Control?
NO
No personal liability
Yes
Did 3d party do business with
entity believing LP was GP based
on conduct?
Is 3d party claiming injury due to LP’s wrongful conduct?
Possible personal liability
Yes
Flow Chart Format
Better answer: Outline provides the Rule and flow chart provides roadmap for Application
• Limited partners are not ordinarily personally liable for the obligations of the limited partnership. RULPA § 303(a). They may be liable if they participate in control of the business, but only to those who transact business with the limited partnership reasonably believing, based upon the limited partner’s conduct, that the limited partner is a general partner.
• Spock is making all business decisions for Enterprise, so he’s probably participating in control of Enterprise’s business. But, even if he is, Khan, the accident victim, did not enter into a transaction with the limited partnership reasonably believing Spock was a general partner. Khan, an accident victim, did not choose to enter into a transaction with Enterprise at all, much less do so believing Spock was a general partner. Khan’s injury is not due to Spock’s wrongful conduct.
• Therefore, Spock will not be liable.
More practice:
Donald Trump meets Shepard Fairey, the artist of the iconic Obama “Hope” poster, and says he’d love to commission a poster of his own, maybe one with the tag line “You’re Hired! For President.”
Fairey says, “I accept” and the two shake hands. Fairey goes back to his studio and creates the portrait. At a stump speech in Iowa a month later, Fairey presents Trump with his work and asks for $3.5 million for the original work, and all usage rights. Trump says, “what are you, an idiot?”
Does Fairey have a viable legal claim against Trump?
YOU’RE HIREDFor President
Not Helpful: Straight from Notes with Focus on CasesOffer
Must be definite. Must create power of acceptance in the offeree.
– Lucy v. Zehmer. Selling farm on back of napkin. Joke? Objective manifestation or subjective intent?
– Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. Harrier jet case. Reasonable or joke?
– Longergan v. Scolnick (and so on incessantly listing cases with a phrase to remember them by . . . )
Our first answerThe question is whether there is a valid offer. An offer has to be definite and create a power of acceptance in an offeree. (is there a better definition?).
An offer can’t be a joke. In the Lucy case, the farmer was joking when he wrote on a napkin that he wanted to sell his farm but then said he was joking; and in the Leonard v. Pepsico case, the offer of a Harrier jet by Pepsi wasn’t intended for acceptance. (do either of these fact recitations answer the question?)
Here, Trump might have been joking, or just making conversation. Fairey said “I accept” and they did shake hands, but Trump probably did not intend to be bound or intend for Fairey to accept anything. Fairey did do work so there may be detrimental reliance (definition?)
Slightly more helpful?Formal Rule StatementOffer: A communication that indicates to its recipient a willingness to be bound to the terms that it expresses which is complete enough and specific enough that the recipient can manifest acceptance by merely saying "I accept": communication must have DEFINITE AND MATERIAL TERMS that are clear enough that reasonable offeree would understand the communication to be an offer and not an invitation to make an offer.
• The rule is here, but you have to decode the formal language and decide how to apply that rule. Would this be helpful in answering the Trump question?
Best VersionOffer: statement/act that creates “power of acceptance” indicating willingness to be immediately bound by acceptance without further negotiation.
I. Was there an offer?a. Did the purported offer make any sort of communication specific to the
offeree?i. If no, is there any chance that the purported offer is that rare type of
communication to a nonspecific offeree that is either a reward or a first-come first-served advertisement for a specific good?
b. Did the offeror intend to be bound?i. If not subjectively, then was there nonetheless objective manifestation of
intent? (Lucy v. Zehmer)c. Were the terms definite?d. Would a reasonable person have interpreted the statement as an offer?e. Was it clear no further negotiation was needed/expected?
Our second answer.The question is whether there is a valid offer. An offer is a statement or act that creates “power of acceptance” indicating willingness to be immediately bound by acceptance without further negotiation.
Here, Trump did make an oral communication to Fairey about wanting to commission a painting. After he said that, Fairey used the language of contract to say “I accept” and they shook hands, which is a general sign of agreement.
However, despite the handshake, there is no indication that Trump intended to be bound. There were no definite terms decided, and if Trump were serious, as a big business mogul he likely would have wanted to negotiate terms. Therefore, a reasonable person would not have interpreted this as an offer.
Fairey may have detrimentally relied on his wish that there was a contract, but (need to write up definition of this!)
Is my summary good?
Use it to answer a practice question.
Meh.
Edit it with what you learned.
Use it to answer another practice
question.
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
7 am Wake up; shower, eat
Sleep Sleep
8 am Review notes and reading
9 am
10 am Class
11 am
Reading
12 pm
Lunch, talk to classmates
1 pm
Lunch, talk to classmates Call family and friends!
2 pm
3 pm
4pm Reading
5 pm
6 pm
Personal time—workout; eat; phone/text/internet
7 pm
Social outing—movies, dinner
R&R
8 pm Quiz questions; summary of notes
9 pm
10 pm
11 pm Sleep
WEEKLY SCHEDULE DURING SECOND THIRD OF SEMESTER
•Class Time = 18 hours•Reading Time = 35 hours•Quiz questions/notes summary = 20 hours•Personal (Free) Time = 38 hours •Sleeping = 57 hours
WHAT DO I DO WITH MY SUMMARY?
•Use summary when taking practice exams and continue to refine it until exam •Ask prof, study group, classmates when you find questions/ambiguities•Create a one-page “checklist” outline to assist in issue spotting
SAMPLE TORTS “TOPICS OUTLINE”
SAMPLE CIV PRO “TOPICS OUTLINE”
• Personal Jurisdiction• Minimum Contacts• Specific Jurisdiction
• Substantial Contacts• General Jurisdiction
• Purposeful Availment• Fairness Factors• Long Arm Statute
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction• Federal Jurisdiction• Arises under federal law• Diversity• Amount in Controversy
• Forum:• Removal• Convenience• Relationship to the Forum
• Erie• Rules of Decision Act• Substance vs. Procedure
• Joinder• Permissive• Compulsory• Parties/Claims
• Service of Process • Amending Pleadings• Discovery• Scope• Methods
• Pre-trial Dispositive Motions• Rule 56—Summary Judgment• Rule 12—Motion to Dismiss• Rule 11—Sanctions
• Res Judicata--Claim Preclusion• Collateral Estoppel--Issue Preclusion
FAQ’S
•When should I start my outline?•When should I finish my outline?
FAQ’S
• I already have a [commercial, upper classman’s, online, student org-generated] summary—do I need to do my own?
FAQ’S
•How long should it be?•Compare it to being in a dark parking lot searching for your keys.
FAQ’S
•Do I have to include all the cases we read?
STUDY GROUPS
•Don’t delegate portions of summary•Do share summaries and refine based on everyone’s input• Take multiple practice questions alone and with group. Compare answers—and again, refine summary• If group isn’t for you, trust your instincts
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/campus-life/advising-counseling/1L-101.cfm
