BAR EXAM | LAW LINKS | OTHER LINKS | STUDY ADVICE
PROFESSORS
& OUTLINES | SITE
CONTACT INFO | MISCELLANEOUS
DAVID CRUMP
Civil Procedure,
Criminal Law,
Property
Law Practice Strategies
How to Reason in the Law (scroll to bottom)
Civil
Procedure Outline Fall 2015 added 09-29-2016
Civil
Procedure Outline 2011 – anonymous added 05-27-2012
Anonymously
contributed Civil Procedure (Fall 2011) outline added 01-30-2012
Anonymously
contributed Practice Strategies outline - Grade A
minus added
08-17-2009
Anonymously
contributed property outline added 02/16/2009
Law
Practice Strategies Outline - credit probably due to Chance Decker - submitted
May 2008
Civ Pro Outline - submitted April 2008
Civ Pro Outline - Anonmyous
contribution
Anonymously
Contributed Civ Pro Outline - Fall 2005
(Modified)
Gallagher Outline - Civ Pro
Civ Pro Practice Question PowerPoint Slides
Anonymously
Contributed A Civ Pro Outline
Anonymously
contributed Property 1 A Outline
Anonymously
contributed Property 2 A Outline
Anonymously
contributed property outline (2006)
Another
anonymously contributed property outline (2006)
"Skeletal"
Outline for Criminal Law - Thanks to Carole Hitt,
class of 2005
Preface:
The following bolded
information was offered by Professor Crump specifically for this web site; it's
a clarification he thought would help the students (which is great, since
that's the sole purpose of this web site). Submissions from Profs are welcome
any time. I present to you Professor Crump's (unedited) comments...
*** START ***
1. This
web site is entirely correct in stating that in the Civil Procedure course
I want students to be able to answer legal questions by constructing
relatively rigorous logic, usually in syllogistic form, and that I
emphasize this ability both in class and on examinations. I also want students
to be able to state principles exhaustively to the extent that they are
relevant and to be able to analyze the relevant facts exhaustively. However, I
think there is one respect in which this web site overstates the case. I don't
look for exact wording in stating the principles (premises). Accurate
paraphrasing--by which I mean statements that cover each element of the
principles and have the concept of each correct--is perfectly acceptable.
Students often ask whether it is necessary to "memorize" the rules
and case holdings, and the answer is no, but they do have to understand
the principles conceptually and be able to state them in words that convey
their meanings.
2. Also,
I suspect that the contrast that this web site draws between my approach
and that of Professor Griffin is probably more about the contrast between
a course in Constitutional Law and one in Civil Procedure. Everyone would teach
those two courses differently and expect different kinds of answers on an
exam. I certainly teach differently when I teach Constitutional law.
*** END
***
Carter’s commentary on Prof.
Crump begins here:
Crump did his undergrad at Harvard and
got his law degree from UT. He teaches Civil Procedure, Criminal law, Evidence,
Property and more. Crump has worked in private practice and for the
Crump is very insistent on people
speaking up when they’re called on. If he can’t hear you, he’ll go over to the
other side of the room, cup his hand to his ear and have you repeat yourself
until he can
hear, so speak up for Crump's class. Crump really doesn’t like to field
questions during class and typically only answers one question per class
session. If you have questions you’re better off writing them down and talking
to him after class. Crump co-wrote the Civ Pro book
he teaches from and solo-authored the Crim Law text
he uses.
Crump is VERY insistent that you use
particular language for certain points of law – no sense in me trying to give a
list, but you’ll see what I mean. He is also very big on syllogistic logic
based legal analysis and this carries over to answering his questions in class
and on the exam. A syllogism is a major premise (e.g. all emeralds are green) a
minor premise (e.g. this is an emerald) and a conclusion (e.g. therefore it is
green). Anyway, y'all will hear all about that from him.
Crump posts a seating chart on the
first day of class: everyone sits in alphabetical order, no exceptions. He
calls on people systematically (alphabetically) and picks up where he left off
at each class, so at least you know it’s coming. Crump will tell you that if
you miss a class he doesn’t care what your reason was, going to the hospital
for a broken leg and going to the movies are equally valid, so don’t bother
explaining to him if you miss a class.
Crump goes above and beyond the call
of duty to make sure you learn the material, arguably more so than any other
professor. He has a series of review videos for Civ
Pro and Crim Law (these are valuable, try to see them
at least once), distributes skeletal course outlines, and…check this…even
brings in his guitar on occasion and sings the songs he wrote about Civ Pro stuff so you’ll remember it. Oh, and I almost
forgot – he’ll bring in his ventriloquist’s dummy named Rehnquist.
Unless he decides otherwise, Crump has
a party at his house early on in the 1st semester. You should go,
it’s a good way to get to know your new section mates and the keg is on Crump.
Crump’s 1L Exams:
Crump is willing to give a fairly high
ratio of As. Because his exams are (i) fair and (ii)
reasonably predictable, you can take that to the bank if you’re willing to put
in the study time. Do Crump's old exams, multiple-choice for Civ Pro particularly; his questions tend to resurface
looking very similar.
For Criminal Law (and don’t count on
this, he might change his approach), because it is such a statute-heavy topic,
Crump narrowed the field for our class about 2 weeks out from the exam,
essentially telling us in fairly broad language what material would and
wouldn’t be covered. There really weren’t any surprises,
the material on the exam was a fair reflection of the amount of emphasis it was
given in class.
This is VERY important for
Crump’s exams: give him
the wording he wants, in the order he wants. List all of
the applicable law for each question. Then
apply the law to the facts in the question. Then
draw your conclusion. If there’s one thing Crump hates, it’s
students starting with a conclusion – always give him the law first (that goes
for answering in class as well as exams). And use the wording he uses…old
outlines posted on this site will be helpful to you in that regard.
The following advice was
anonymously contributed:
*** START *** Crump's property
class might have been boring some of the time, but pay attention to the midterm
and go talk to him about it. One of those questions WILL be on the final
exam. *** END ***
Anonymously
contributed property outline added 02/16/2009
Law
Practice Strategies Outline - credit probably due to Chance Decker - submitted
May 2008
Civ Pro Outline - submitted April 2008
Civ Pro Outline - Anonmyous
contribution
Anonymously
Contributed Civ Pro Outline - Fall 2005
(Modified)
Gallagher Outline - Civ Pro
Civ Pro Practice Question PowerPoint Slides
Anonymously
Contributed A Civ Pro Outline
Anonymously
contributed Property 1 A Outline
Anonymously
contributed Property 2 A Outline
Anonymously
contributed property outline (2006)
Another
anonymously contributed property outline (2006)
"Skeletal"
Outline for Criminal Law - Thanks to Carole Hitt
How To Reason in the Law
This two hour course covers a
number of disciplines that lawyers have occasion to delve into while practicing
law. Covered are:
Logic, Fallacy, Economics, Finance, Management, Ethics, Politics, Science, Jursiprudence, Psychology, Probabilities, Statistics, Game
Theory, Rhetoric, and Negotiation.
There's one casebook, a
twenty-something dollar paperback authored by Crump. Much like his Civ Pro and Crim Law books,
substantive material is set out followed by questions and problems. It's
actually a relatively easy read. Anticipate a relatively small class size (this
class I think appeals to a niche market of Crump-a-holics
and science types) - there were about 15 people in my class.
Crump teaches this class in
keeping with his 1L format, albeit in a much more relaxed manner: go through
the materials in the casebook, he'll teach to overhead slides, then he calls on people sequentially to answer the problems
and questions. They aren't hard and the answer is almost inevitably on whatever
slide he has up at the time. Because of the small class size you can expect to
get called on every other class, but this is substantially different from being
called on by Crump in say, Civ Pro.
I can't remember if I pledged
not to divulge the substantive content of the final exam, so to stay on the
right side of the honor code I won't. It was a 2 hour exam and there were 6
questions total with equal points to each. The sample exam Crump gives out at
the start of the semester is a strong indicator of what to expect on the final.
The final was totally open notes: outlines, whatever you want. While the
material isn't super complicated and memorization isn't really the name of the
game, you are going to have to put in study time to make sure you understand it
well enough to apply it. There is a teacher's manual that accompanies the
casebook which Crump distributes at the beginning of the semester, which is a
kind of Cliff Notes for the course (you can bring that to the exam too).
Some areas of the course are
more interesting than others, subject to personal taste. I found economics and
statistics rather dry, but I liked game theory and psychology. In sum, the
reading load is fairly light, the exam was fair and you might learn something
you can use in your later career. My recommendation to improve the course would
be to drop some of the coverage of areas that are less likely to have practical
application (ethics, jurisprudence) in favor of emphasizing stuff you're
virtually sure to run into as a lawyer (accounting, management, negotiation).
If you're shopping for a 2 credit course with varied material and a do-able
exam, you could do much worse.
Carter's 2004 How
To Reason Outline
Study
Group's answers to How To Reason Sample Exam