PROFESSOR SERIES: KEATING'S TORTS EXAM
by Johari Townes ('07)

First of all, Keating’s handouts are a blessed, blessed gift. They contain everything you need to know from the course. They’re also a good indication of which cases, economic theory, and policy he considers important. I actually outlined directly from his handouts. If you are making your own outline and haven’t finished it yet, I highly recommend relying on them, and just using your notes (or the book) as a supplement when you are confused about something or need more detail.

Second of all, figure out how you want to organize your exam answers. This is something you can do in advance. My answers for intentional torts and negligence all followed the same pattern: a sentence laying out the elements (which I had prepared in advance so I wouldn’t forget anything), and then a separate paragraph (or two) explaining each element. Make life easy for yourself during the exam and decide ahead of time how to organize your answer for each type of problem (warning liability, strict liability, etc.).

Be sure to mention how each element is, or may be, fulfilled. Of course you want to spend the most time on the elements that seem most ambiguous, but he also wants to see a short statement of how the clearly satisfied elements are met. (Apparently this isn’t true for all of the torts professors, but it is for Keating.) Where two possible tests may apply (for example the consumer expectation test and the risk utility test), discuss them both if both are applicable…which they probably will be.

Don’t forget to mention defenses and remedies where appropriate. Where these were relevant, I had a separate paragraph for defenses, and one for remedies. For example, in a nuisance claim the plaintiff seeks money damages and an injunction, and the court may also grant a partial injunction (like in the racecar case). Don’t forget to state this.

Don’t worry about case names or memorizing the details of lots of cases. You can refer to cases by describing them (i.e. “the racecar case where the court granted a partial injunction”). And you only need to analogize to a specific case where it really helps your argument—for example, where there was a case that represented an alternative view on how to treat an issue, or that helps you to illustrate a policy issue that might affect your analysis.

Finally, remember that Keating likes policy and economic theory. While your exam should not look like an undergraduate econ paper, it’s ok to discuss economic or policy implications or concerns. Which brings me back to Keating’s handouts: this kind of discussion is probably most appropriate about things that he himself emphasized, in class and in the handouts. If he spent two classes and half of a handout talking about the economic policy concerns of something, it’s probably important, and there’s probably somewhere on the test you can fit it in.

Feel free to contact Johari at: jtownes@usc.edu

Congratulations on finishing your first exam -- only three more to go...

PROFESSOR SERIES: MARMOR'S LL&E EXAM
by Adam Blightman ('07)

Remember, Marmor doesn't really seem to care what these other authors have to say, so he obviously doesn't care what YOU have to say about a particular subject. You guys should all have an idea about what his views are on particular subjects, so keep them in mind as you write the exam. Since Marmor's test is one of the few you will take that have a word limit (I think it's like 200 words per answer), figure out what the most important aspect of the answer is and focus on that. You're not going to be time pressured, so take some time to figure out what the best answer is, then write as well as you can. I heard that your test is closed note this year, but don't worry too much. Our test was open book last year, but because of that, he said that the questions were more specific in nature than other years. I sent a few people a chart that lists each author's basic beliefs, plus how they agree or disagree with other authors. If you want that chart, email the 2L president, Ryan Oliver, at raoliver@usc.edu or myself at blightma@usc.edu and I can send it to you.

Other than this, there really isn't anything else I can say to help you with the test. Just remember that section E-F of the 2L class rules all, especially when it comes to basketball. If you don't believe me, ask Ofer.

Feel free to contact Adam at ablightma@usc.edu with any questions And in response to Adam's claim for dominance, the completely objective editor of this blog would have to say that, while 2L E-H has a solid squad which has exhibited some signs of preeminence (at times), they really can't hang with the Gould School sovereign that is 3L A-D, the epitome of undeniable supremacy.