The Short and Sweet Guide to Creating a Course
Outline
Outlining is an essential and effective study technique and tool. While you may be
tempted to use an outline from a student group outline bank or a commercial outline, the practice
of creating your own outline is just as if not more important than the outline itself. Creating an
outline causes you to think critically and synthesize the material from class. Through this process
you develop the depth of understanding of a course that is a predicate to academic success.
What is an outline?
The following section describes varying approaches to outlining and highlights the
essential features of all course outlines. While taking a typical law school course, you will
accumulate many materials–a syllabus, class notes, case book, case briefs, etc. Outlining
organizes all of those materials in a way that will help you effectively apply what you have
learned on exams. Most law school courses are organized by cases, in the chronological order in
which the cases were assigned; but your outline should not be structured by case. Instead, your
outline should organize the material the way you need to apply it on the exam, which is typically
by issue and rule. You should thus normally first structure your outline by topics and rules.
Under each broad topic or rule, you should identify and explain each sub-topic and rule element.
Finally, you will use the cases (and maybe hypos) from the course to illustrate each rule and rule
element, and should identify the outcome-determinative facts of the cases you read so that you
can reason by analogy to them when you are applying rules in an exam setting. A typical outline
thus has the following elements:

Issues;

Rules and rule-elements; and, for each rule and rule element,

Identification of the outcome determinative facts of the decisions you read that shed
light on the rule’s interpretation and application.
For example, in Torts you will learn about the broad topic of intentional torts. You will
also learn about different types of intentional torts–battery, assault, etc.–which are all rules that
fall under the broad topic. Each type of intentional tort has elements (e.g., “intent”) which should
be organized under the rule, and each of which has its own “sub-rule” (e.g., what is “intent”?).
You should then place the relevant court decisions you read under the tort and/or elements that
the decisions illustrate, noting key facts for each case that pertain to the rule or element in
question.
Organizing outlines by topic, rule, and rule element is more effective for exams than
organizing outlines by case. Largely, law professors do not want you to regurgitate the cases
from the course or to provide “book reports” of court decisions. Rather, they want to see if you
can identify issues and apply rules, using court decisions when applying the rules by reasoning
by analogy to or distinguishing them. Organizing the course outline this way means you will be
ready to issue-spot and apply the rules to the exam.
Many new law students struggle to understand the difference between the “notes” they
take during class and a “course outline.” Notes taken during class are typically chronological and
case-by-case, and often reflect the relatively chaotic back-and-forth of the Socratic dialogue.
Outlines cut out the “noise” and distill key issues and rules, taking the case discussion at the
heart of each class and converting cases from mere windows into the law to tools to be used
when applying the law (by reasoning by analogy to cases in the service of application of rules
and their elements to new hypothetical problems).
Finally, many new law students struggle to identify the best source material for their
outlines. A rookie mistake is for students to rely entirely on their notes when creating course
outlines because student notes are sometimes unreliable. Class notes should be used as one
reference point for you, while outlining, also refer back to the source materials (assigned
reading) and any professor handouts or shared PowerPoints, which together, along with your
notes, give you a foundation for correctly distilling rules and their elements.
What does an outline look like?
Sometimes students are unsure of how their outline should look. Maybe you have seen
many different outlining styles and are confused about what way is “right.” Well, there is no
“right” outline style. Everyone has different learning styles, so different outlining styles will
work for different students. You should pick the style(s) that work best for you and your course.
To give you some examples of different outline styles, the last two pages of this
document contain short excerpts of outlines* created by Hastings students.1 You will see a
horizontal table, flow chart, and a linear outline. You will also notice that one student uses colors
and one student uses bold, underline, and italics to differentiate between concepts. Again, this is
your outline, so do what works best for you!
* ADAPS does not verify the accuracy of the law in these outlines. These excerpts are provided
for illustrative purposes only. You should rely on your course materials and professor’s
explanation of the law when building your outline.
1
Thank you to the Hastings Law Journal for providing ADAPS with these outlines.
When should you outline?
Generally, you should begin outlining after your professor has covered a broad topic, .e.g,
after you finish “jurisdiction” or “pleading” in Civil Procedure. This usually occurs after the first
few weeks of every semester. After you begin outlining, you should bake time to outline into
your weekly schedule for the semester.
Waiting to outline during the “Reading Period” or between each final is never a good
idea. There is too much material covered during the semester to effectively outline every course
over a couple of days. Moreover, outlining during the semester gives you more time to process,
apply, and memorize the course material. Further, outlining during the semester leaves you time
for other study strategies, such as taking practice exams. Finally, as you study, outlines should be
revisited and revised throughout the semester; starting your outline early allows more time to
perfect it.
Bottom line: You should consider outlining as part of your weekly study plan.
Why Should I Not Just Use a Commercial or Prior-Year Outline?
Relying entirely on someone else’s outline deprives you of the process of reflecting upon,
synthesizing, and organizing course material which produces a depth of understanding necessary
for success in law school. Outlines are just the end-product of someone else’s effort to digest and
synthesize complex material, representing the tip of an iceberg of information that the person
who drafted the outline can access by reference to her own shorthand; but reliance on shorthand,
alone, produces only the most shallow understanding of a course, one that in our experience
precludes students from achieving the highest grades and from being able to recall the material
during the final exam and years later at the time of the bar exam. You may wish to review
commercial or prior-year outlines as a check against your own or for inspiration regarding how
you can best approach the process of course synthesis, but you should create your own outline.
Would you like to learn more?
If you would like to discuss outlining with an Academic and Professional Success
Lecturer, contact Jennifer Freeland at [email protected] to set up an appointment.
You can find more resources about outlining by visiting ADAP’s Student Academic Resources
page.
II. ADVERSE POSSESSION:
General rule: adverse possessor takes ownership of property subject to all covenants, restrictions, future
interests, easements, etc.
Standard of proof: clear & convincing evidence – higher than typical in civil court b/c court doesn’t
want to improperly give someone else’s land to someone who was initially a trespasser.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
ELEMENT
Actual
Possession:
Description/Rule
Quantity and quality is dependent on the land. Question is
if they are using the land as an owner would.
Open &
Notorious:
True owner has notice of the possession (it can be
constructive – if they should’ve known); Neighbors
believing you own the property
Possessor is only one to use the land as an owner would
during the relevant period. (Under color of title: grantors
of deed coming on land isn’t a problem b/c it’s as guests,
with permission of adverse possessor)
No extended breaks during time period, and any transfer
of the possession involved with the process of tacking is
done in privity of the claim. Sufficient if land is used as an
average owner of similar property would – i.e. seasonally
Possession against the right of the true owner w/o
permission – treating the land like you are the owner of it.
Can still be hostile even if you think you own the land, b/c
you’re on it not with permission of true owner but under
your own claim that it’s yours
Presumption of Hostility: in absence of evidence of
explicit permission, we presume hostility and nonpermissive use.
Whatever exam indicates or 10 years.
Exclusive:
Continuous:
Hostile:
For Statutory
Period:
If claim is under “color of title” also need:
Color of title: A deed or something showing you believed the land was
conveyed to you.
*Depends on state statute -- paying taxes on the land as
Continuous
you would if you owned it.
Payment of
Taxes
Case(s)
Nome 2000: Seasonal
use, ok b/c character of
land, how average
owner would use land
Romero: used as owner,
believed had accurate
deed
Nome 2000: Seasonal
okay b/c how average
owner would use land
Gobble: property line
squabble enough
Romero: thought owned
through deed
Romero: deed not void
for want of proper
description if, with the
deed and with extrinsic
evidence on the ground,
a surveyor can ascertain
the boundaries.
Tacking Doctrine: as long as the transfer of possession of the land in question was made in privity of
title and consensually, then one claiming adverse possession may add his years in adverse possession to
those of a predecessor to establish the statutory minimum. Also, possession by prior occupant must have
been adverse or under color of title.
FIRST AMENDMENT
total ban --> ok?
"unprotected" category
(i.e. obscenity, fighting
words, defamation,
incitement)
RAV only addresses
content-based restrictions
w/in category, presumably
a total ban remains
permissible
content-neutral w/in
category --> ok?
content-based w/in
category --> s/s (R.A.V.)
Is it "speech" or just
conduct? If speech...
Content-Based
strict scrutiny
expressive conduct
(O'Brien)
Content-Neutral
intermediate scrutiny
time, place, & manner
(T, P & M)

Content-Neutral Regulations
o Content-neutral regulations of expressive conduct are subject to intermediate scrutiny (O’Brien).
 conduct is unprotected by 1A (can be regulated) unless it violates O’Brien
 Test for Intermediate Scrutiny (after deciding a reg is content neutral):
 A gov’t reg that is content-neutral is sufficiently justified if:
o it is within the constitutional power of government,
 only applies to federal legislation
o it furthers a substantial (or important) government interest,
o it is not related to the suppression of free expression, and
o it is no greater than necessary (b/c if too broad, then question purpose of the law)
 O’Brien: D burned Selective Service Registration card, which was a crime. Law is constitutional –
furthers an important interest in raising and maintaining armies; not related to speech b/c purpose of
the law is to make the draft work; fit the requirement – no broader than necessary.
 Texas v. Johnson: TX law criminalizes desecrating the flag (expressive conduct). Stated gov’t
interest: (1) preventing breaches of peace (not implicated); (2) preserving symbolism of the flag (not
unrelated to the suppression of speech). Does not receive O’Brien/intermediate scrutiny b/c the gov’t
interest is related to the suppression of speech. Court applied “exacting scrutiny.”
 Rehnquist Dissent: this should be fighting words
 Stevens Dissent: can be criminalized as the destruction of gov’t property.
o Time, Place and Manner Restrictions (those that do not distinguish between cases based on content and do
not prohibit speech, just confine it) are subject to intermediate scrutiny  directly regulate expression
 T, P & M restrictions are constitutional so long as they further an important government interest
through means that are substantially related to that interest.
 Renton v. Playtime Theaters: City limited adult theaters locations. Facially, appeared content based,
but court says this is a content-neutral time, place, & manner regulation. Gov’t’s stated interest:
preserving the quality of urban life – they are regulating based on secondary effects of the theaters
(not limiting expression).
 Brennan Dissent: this is a content-based restriction and should be subjected to strict scrutiny