RE: Mintel

( Victoria.Lusk@dora.state.co.us )
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:11:06 -0700

I think any case that has any description of its own (whether that is
two lines or half a page) is fair game. I don't think they've ever
asked about a case where only the name is mentioned (as in a "see also")

Good luck

Victoria Lusk

>----------
>From: dperry@UNIGARD.COM[SMTP:dperry@UNIGARD.COM]
>Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 2:01 PM
>To: studygroup8@lists.casact.org
>Subject: Mintel
>
>I am interested to know what you think of this one. For the Mintel readings,
>the Syllabus says, "Candidates will not be tested on details of cases
>mentioned only briefly, but will be responsible for knowledge of cases
>treated in some depth." My question is: What is "some depth?" One paragraph?
>One page? Four sentences?
>
>My rule of thumb has been that ones which are greater than half of a page
>should be looked at more closely. Also, the ones which have the published
>opinion from one of the justices involved (usually at the end of the
>chapter) should be studied closely. Any other thoughts on this one? What has
>worked or not worked for you? These readings are the types of ones that
>someone can easily get bogged down on.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dan Perry.
>