Let me read your mind real quick. You’re here because you want to ace your 1L exams. To which I say, “Great, but do you have the secret ingredient?” I’m talking about the essential ingredient that every top law student knows about. I’ll give you a hint. It’s not found in your casebooks or your professors’ lectures. So what’s the secret? I’ll tell you. The secret is using time-tested outlines to prepare for and master your 1L classes. So now that you know the secret, let’s find out why my exclusive 1L outlines will help you ace your law school exams.
Ace Your 1L Exams By Using The Best 1L Outlines
Hi I’m JD – a Biglaw attorney.
Like you, when I started law school I felt a tremendous amount of pressure. The pressure to “fit in” during 1L. The pressure to do well on my final exams. And the pressure to land a good job.
We all know how important grades are – especially 1L grades – when it comes to succeeding in law school and starting your legal career off on the right foot.
But here’s the huge problem with law school – your professors hide the ball and only teach you how to “think like a lawyer.”
They don’t teach you how to succeed in law school or ace your exams.
And they certainly don’t tell you how incredibly difficult it will be to get a good job if you don’t finish near the top of your class.
You’ll have to figure out on your own how to:
- Study the law
- Outline effectively
- Ace your 1L exams
Instead of hiding the ball, imagine if someone gave you a roadmap for how to learn the law. An outline to serve as your foundation for law school success. A tool to help you ace your exams. And a way to rise to the top of your 1L class.
Sound too good to be true? It’s not.
I learned early on that I had to uncover the secrets to law school success for myself.
After all, 1L grades are simply too important to leave to chance.
So what did I do?
I read literally every book I could find about how to prepare for 1L, study the law, outline effectively, and ace my 1L exams.
It was only after spending hundreds of hours in the library studying, taking practice exams, and perfecting my 1L outlines, that I learned how to crush law school exams.
How did I do, you ask?
Well friends, I earned numerous Book Awards, finished 1L at the very top of my class, graduated with Latin Honors, and landed a job in BigLaw.
As you can see, I’ve already done the hard work for you. Now it’s your turn to enjoy all the benefits of law school success.
So I ask you this simple question, “Wouldn’t you pay a few bucks for a tool that will help you ace your 1L exams?”
I thought so.
Then take the first step to achieving your own law school success. Download the best law school outlines today.
My proven 1L outlines are now available as a printable PDF e-book for only $14.99. That’s cheaper than three cups of your morning Starbucks coffee.
That means you’ll get all 5 of my 1L outlines in one convenient package. That’s more than 75 pages of the best law school outlines you can get your hands on.
Just imagine the big smile on your face when you see A, after A, after A on your 1L report card.
Here are the 5 1L outlines you’ll get when you download your copy of my best-selling PDF e-book today:
- Civil Procedure
- Contracts
- Criminal Law
- Property
- Torts
Now is the time to take control of your law school career and set yourself down the path of success.
Click the book now to download a copy of my proven 1L outlines because I’m going to stop selling them soon.
And because I want you all to ace your 1L exams, I put together a free preview featuring excerpts from each of my 5 1L outlines.
Take a quick look and you’ll immediately see just how valuable these outlines will be for you.
1. Best Civil Procedure Outline
Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction is present where (1) the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, (2) the dispute arises from those contacts, and (3) the suit does not contradict the interests of the parties, the forum state, or the interests of justice or efficiency.
Minimum contacts – never expire, AND
- Courts have found contacts to meet the minimum standard when the defendant (1) has purposefully availed itself of the forum state, (2) has entered into a more than minimal contract, or (3) has intentionally or recklessly engaged in harmful behavior directed at the forum state.
- Contacts must be continuous and systematic (International Shoe)
- More than foreseeability required; defendant’s actions must be purposefully directed at forum state (World-Wide VW)
- Stream of commerce not enough, must have intent to get to that specific market(Asahi)
- Unilateral activity of plaintiff is not enough (World-Wide VW)
- Purposeful availment to benefits and protections of forum state’s laws (International Shoe)
- Purposeful direction of business activities in the forum state
- Contracts + (Burger King) – duration and size
- Owning property in a state is not enough unless it relates to the claim (Shaffer)
- Calder Effects Test – Does the defendant know where the injury will be felt – purposeful direction
- Pavlovich – defendant did not target California/more than foreseeability required, stream of commerce, no intent
- Zippo Test – internet stream of commerce
- O’Connor’s idea of stream of commerce+ (1) Designing a product for a forum state, (2) advertising to a forum state, (3) providing customer service in the forum state, or 4) marketing the product through sales agents in the forum state.
Nexus – contacts must relate to the liability being sued on, AND
Factors of reasonableness and substantive justice under Asahi
- Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
- Plaintiff’s interest in suing in their own forum
- Burden on the defendant
- Judicial efficiency
2. Best Contracts Outline
Consideration
- Bargained-for exchange between the parties, AND
- A legal detriment to the promise
- Legal detriment exists where the party:
- Engages in an act that the party was not previously obligated to perform, OR
- Refrains from exercising a legal right
- Legal detriment exists where the party:
- Is it consideration or a condition on a gift?
- Courts do not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration
- Promissory Estoppel/Detrimental Reliance = substitute for consideration
- A valid/invalid promise to refrain from suing constitutes a legal detriment (good faith belief if invalid)
- Promise to make a future gift is not enforceable, UNLESS:
- Ricketts v. Scothorn – the promisor’s promise foreseeably induces action or forbearance on the part of the promise (PE/DR)
- Hamer v. Sidway – bargained exchange and consideration (e.g., nephew didn’t smoke/drink for $)
- Past Performance/Consideration – if a person makes a promise to compensate another for some prior performance, that prior detriment cannot be consideration for the promise (not bargained for)
- Illusory Promises – a promise with no detriment, nothing committed/given (no consideration)
- “I will give you ten dollars if I feel you deserve it”; unqualified right to cancel or withdraw at any time
- “You are free to order as many units you want at 100 dollars if you desire”
- Pre-existing duty rule – a party who refuses to perform, and thereby creates a promise from the other party to the contract to pay him an increased compensation for doing that which he is legally bound to do, takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party (Alaska Packers, BAD FAITH)
- Watkins (GOOD FAITH) – if modifications are reasonable to unforeseen circumstances, a subsequent promise is enforceable
- UCC 2-209 consideration is not necessary to a good faith modification of a K
3. Best Criminal Law Outline
Larceny (possession obtained unlawfully)
- 6 elements:
- (1) the trespassory (2) taking and (3) carrying away of the (4) tangible personal property of (5) another with the (6) intent to permanently steal
- Must have only custody for larceny, not possession
- Custody = physical control over property, but the right to use it is substantially restricted by the person in constructive possession of the property
- e.g., shopkeeper giving customer item to inspect, employer giving item to employee for work
- given by third person = possession
- Larceny by trick – one who obtains property by fraud obtains only custody, leaving true possession with the owner. Therefore, when the thief later converts the property, he takes it from the owner’s constructive possession and commits larceny (Pear Case) – never got title to horse
- Taking under a claim of right is never larceny (can be reasonable/unreasonable mistake)
- Honest intention when receiving property is embezzlement, not larceny
- Carrying away (asportation) even a slight distance is enough
Embezzlement (possession obtained lawfully)
- 5 elements:
- (1) the fraudulent (2) conversion of (3) property of (4) another by a (5) person in lawful possession of that property
- Bank teller is given money, then pockets it (Bazeley)
- 3rd person = possession
- (1) the fraudulent (2) conversion of (3) property of (4) another by a (5) person in lawful possession of that property
- Must convert it (can’t use only for a short time or move it slightly)
- If defendant honestly believed he had a right to take the property, this will usually negate the existence of the fraud
False Pretenses (possession of title obtained unlawfully)
- 4 elements:
- (1) obtaining title to the (2) property of another by an (3) intentional false statement of existing fact with (4) intent to defraud the other
- The statement must induce the victim to give over the property (causation)
- Concealment, fiduciary relationship (past dealings)
- Cannot be a statement of intention (intention to not pay)
- Modern cases would make this false pretenses anyway
- Reinforcing false impressions can all qualify as false representation
4. Best Property Outline
Real Covenants
- Affirmative – a promise to perform an act – (under English rule, does not touch and concern)
- Restrictive – a promise not to perform an act –(under English rule, does touch and concern)
- Under English rule, touch and concern was only tested at the creation
- Enforceable in an action for damages
- Not enforceable if an assignee has no notice of it
- Requirements for the Burden to Run:
- The promise must be in writing
- The original parties must intend for it to run with the land (intend to bind their successors)
- The burden must “touch and concern” the land
- Make the land itself more useful or valuable to the benefited party (Neponsit approach)
- If the benefit is in gross, will not touch and concern/run with the land (Caulett approach)
- e.g., restricting land to residential use, cannot operate a business that competes with the grantor’s nearby business, payment of money to homeowners association
- Horizontal privity – privity of estate between the original covenanting parties
- Transfer of property between parties (e.g., sale, mortgage, strawman)
- Strongly against hindering alienability
- Transfer of property between parties (e.g., sale, mortgage, strawman)
- Vertical privity – privity of estate between one of the covenanting parties and a successor in interest (sales, gifts, inheritances) must be same type of estate, LE →LE
- The successor must have actual or constructive notice of the promise
- 2 types – inquiry (observe the surroundings); or record (in original deed)
- The successor must have actual or constructive notice of the promise
- Requirements for the Benefit to Run:
- The promise must be in writing
- The original parties must intend for it to run with the land (intend to bind their successors)
- The benefit must “touch and concern” the land
- Vertical privity must exist – does not need to be same type of estate, just privity
5. Best Torts Outline
Assault – is the (1) intentional act (2) that creates apprehension of (3) imminent battery
- Intent is a voluntary act of purpose or desire
- Plaintiff must have awareness of the danger
- Threat of future harm is not valid, unless circumstances and past actions contribute
Battery – is the (1) intentional act (2) causing (3) harmful or offensive (4) contact
- Intent can be transferred or established by substantial certainty (Garratt v. Dailey)
- Intending to cause apprehension of contact and actually causing harmful contact is sufficient
- Bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity, not one who is unduly sensitive (Wishnatsky v. Huey)
- Offensive contact with an object attached to body constitutes battery (Pickard v. Buick)
Trespass to Chattels – is the intentional using or intermeddling with the chattel in possession of another
- Disposing the other of the chattel, OR
- Impairing the chattel as to its condition, quality, or value, OR
- Depriving the possessor of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, OR
- Causing bodily harm to the possessor or causing harm to some person or thing of the possessors
- Mistake is not a defense
All the best,
JD
P.S. After you download my proven 1L outlines, be sure to check out all of the Best Law School Supplements.