Talk:Casebook method

I'm just curious - and it's a question either to the person who wrote this page, or anyone else who knows. Is Langdell really the first person who told students to read cases? I would have thought that students were reading judgments long before America was invented, let alone Langdell's casebooks. But I would be very interested. Wikidea 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Law school outlines be merged into Casebook method. I think that the content in the LS outline article can easily be explained in the context of Casebook, and the Casebook article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of LS outline will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Both articles are poorly referenced. By including a section on "how" students should study cases, e.g., by outlining the cases, a fuller explanation of both topics can be prepared. It is more likely that RS can be found to support these closely related topics.--S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal to me. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A merge and redirect would probably be a good choice here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry as of now I differ from merger proposal. While this article needs improvement with details from methods adopted by Law schools across the globe; This artcle has specialised scope and opportunity to grow. For global purposes article may need change of article name but certainly not a merger. A merger will kill opportunity to grow article about Methods used in Law School trainings.

Mahitgar (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Case method as the rule rather than the exception in common law jurisdiction

I disagree somewhat with the introductory paragraph which states "It is based on the principle that rather than studying highly abstract summaries of legal rules (the technique used in most countries), the best way to learn American law is to read the actual judicial opinions which become the law under the rule of stare decisis (due to its Anglo-American common law origin)."

This gives the impression that the case method is a uniquely American method of legal education, when it is probably true in most common law jurisdictions. In fact, the reason why in most countries legal education involves studying "highly abstract summaries of legal rules" is simply because they are Civil Law systems where case law and precedents do not hold much, if any value, and cases are decided upon the bare application of a Code or provision to a factual pattern. In some jurisdictions, cases are not even reported, because there is no need to. Of course, I risk generalisation and some Civil Law jurisdictions have moved towards seeing the value of deciding cases in the same manner as previously-decided similar cases (akin to the doctrine of stare decisis). But by and large, law in Civil systems have been distilled into a science.

In contrast, under common law systems, law is an art. The principles of common law develop incrementally and in reponse to specific disputes before the court. It is thus impossible to understand any single legal principle without appreciating the underlying context in which they were laid down. Hence the need to understand the facts of the case, and this necessitates reading cases and judicial opinions. I daresay this is true for most if not all common law jurisdictions like the Commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.86.117 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with the situation Langdell was responding to when he developed and popularized this method. He was trying to reform the study of U.S. law, not the common law in general. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)