Yes. The DCC cases are all about situations where a STATE made a law, and that law potentially steps on the toes of Congress. After all, Congress and ONLY Congress is in charge of interstate commerce. So, if a state makes a law that seems to affect the rest of the country, then it might not be cool that the state did that. The state will argue that the law really only affects the people inside that state, and that it's all about public health and safety. The feds will argue that the state has stepped on their toes and that the law discriminates on out of state commerce. That's the battle.
Brainstorm about the "Erie Doctrine" so that you can spot the Erie question on exams. The Erie question will come up only when parties are in Federal court based on diversity jurisdiction (if you're not sure why, take a minute and think about it). Your fact pattern will need to contain some kind of state statute. Often, there will be a federal statute that potentially conflicts with the given state statute but sneaky law professors don't tell you about the federal statute. Instead, they give you a state statute that is very similar to a FRCP and its up to you to realize that the FRCP is the Federal rule that is used in the Hanna analysis.
Learn the language, "Due Process" is simply a law-school language for "fairness". Try substituting the language every time you hear it, and you may be less confused.
Proximate Cause freaks everyone out. Learn it in a way that actually works. Most people understand proximate cause best when they think about things that fail the proximate cause test because they are not foreseeable. When someone is careless, most of the time, the resulting damage will be considered foreseeable. In order to be considered unforeseeable because it's blamed on a superseding event, you'd need to see an act of God or Nature, A criminal act or intentional tort of a third party, or an act by the victim himself.
Res Ipsa Loquitor is not the name of a tort. Res Ipsa is simply a method of proving duty and breach. Professors will often tell you that Res Ipsa is a "shortcut" and that's true it IS a short cut at TRIAL. Res Ipsa is not a shortcut on an exam. In fact, Res Ipsa requires you to discuss an entire three-part test.
Think about why you learned the Learned Hand Formula. Everyone knows that in a negligence case, we say that defendants have the duty to act "reasonably". The Hand formula is one way to solidify what "reasonable" behavior might mean in a particular situation. This is not the only way to define "reasonable" it's just one way. Other ways include using common sense, looking to industry custom, or consulting a statute.
I've just completed my first week of crim law and I'm confused about what the best way to study for the exam is. Are supplements like E&E and Emmanual's recommended? What exactly is a hornbook?
