Professor Anne Coughlin explains how to read a case to first-year students during an event hosted by the Black Law Students Association. (Sept. 17, 2015, University of Virginia School of Law)
Who's watching in 2024? A picture paints a thousand words but a video paints a million. I appreciate your lecture, Professor Anne Coughlin. This is awesome comfort learning for a 63-year-old. Everything else on RU-vid is chewing gum for my brain. Res ipsa loquitur. The video speaks for itself.
I could literally just sit here and listen to this lady all day. The amount of curiosity in her own teaching and pure teaching skills have me watching an hour lecture in what feels like 20 mins.
Nnnnnnnnnnnjnjjnn njnnnnnnnj nnjnnnnnnnnjnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nojnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnjjnn. Jn nn nnnjnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnjnnnnnjj n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn njnj
As a 30 years lawyers working in China, even there are different law styles between China and US, but the way of reading cases is same and equally useful.Thank you very much for sentting the HOW wonderful lectures openly ! every student of law school from anywhere will thank you!
As a law student I basically do the following: - read the facts and determine what the issue is. - read the end of the judgement to see what the court holds. - then skim the judgement itself. By doing this I can understand the context of the case and the reasoning process for the final decision.
As a 15 year old kid who loves the study of law and have been into law this is by far the best teacher ive ever seen teach me how to read a case the way she teaches is just 100% on point
1:15 'close reading' and The doctrinal content of the case 1:58 'it'? 2:26 questions to ask when reading a case 2:47 'the doctrine that the case spells out' 3:03 the course curriculum 3:48 Cases teach a certain 'legal principle' or a certain 'doctrinal rule' 4:43 5:13 How does the law define the actus reus of attempt?
Hey, y'all need to read the cases before class! She's too nice! When I see that a case was recently done, I'm like, "Aw, shit. No one's gonna know this yet". When it's a case from the turn of the 20th century, I'm saying, "Yeah, this has been solidified, not changed, fantastic precedent". I won a settlement, without a lawyer, citing a couple of way old cases. Fantastic lecture.
As a law student in Germany, I fell in love with the way she speaks. Her teaching makes it easy to follow and understand! Her patience as well as her own passion about law is catching. Thank you SO much for providing us this fantastic lecture! Lots of love and respect to this brilliant professor!
I am a student in South Sudan 🇸🇸. who's going to school of Law and she is just an amazing 👏 lecturer and her intelligence 😀 is giving me more power to love Law
I'm attending law school this fall. This approach to how to read a case is wonderful. My understanding that one should read *actively* is my takeaway. I enjoyed her teaching, and I hope that my future professors are like this. Hopefully, Virginia accepts my application, and I can just go there!
thanks youtube for suggesting this, i just really finished it OMG!! I enjoy her lecture so much! As an incoming college student I just really love how she doesn’t let the class feels like she is superior and she’s very open for questions, and she even looks like she spoon feed the things you should know or ask about. Also, the words she use I thought she will use a lot of legal jargon and high falutin words- but she explain things very precisely. I LOVE HER 👏🏻👏🏻 SHE’S AMAZING!!
Great speaker, she’s compelling and cut to the quick immediately. Strikes me as a person who has very little time in her day for bullshit, and I appreciate her passing on the savings
I am not a law student but yesterday I watched 'On The Basis of Sex' and I became intrigue about how to read a case. I love to get deeply immerse in this new way to think, read and see the world. So great and thankful to live in this era when if you're curious about something, you can just know a bit of this huge law's world in just a second!
What I love about Law Is solving it's resolution getting all the evidence and facts and putting it together on that particular case, that is important for the courtroom.
Still in 6th grade, but I really love this lecture! (Yes, I watched the entire 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 6 seconds of it) It teaches the basics of examining criminal cases. Thanks!!
I just found this series of lectures and I am learning a lot. I am not a law student s but sometimes I have wondered if I should go back to school. I have a minor in political philosophy and I have always love constitutional law.
Entering the house after normal business hours (especially with other persons that are not known to the homeowner) most certainly IS intent to me! GREAT Class! Loved it.
such a positive teacher. i'm not cut out for law school, but if I had her as a professor, I would work tirelessly to make it through school from her belief in me and inspiration. the skills she covered today I can apply in everything I read.
This helped me start up the process of thinking that I will require for my 1st year in law school. Thank you for making this available (and shame on those just focusing upon this cool woman's clothing, etc. ... you guys will never pass the Bar!)
Professor Coughlin, would you mind to do or show (if you have done) a video lecture on statutory interpretation and construction, please? Thank you in advance!
I am so impressed with quality of talent at UVA; as a Northeasterner I always thought our Ivies were everything but nope, these southern ivies are equally interesting.
the question of degree of proximity may vary with the circumstances, and there he uses the word proximity, and youll realize that res ispa tests are differenet.
What annoys me is that they are so underprepared. Nobody read the material?? A lecture like this needs to be absorbed, not face in front of a laptop like a robot. Splendid teacher.
I swear there was a lecture on the Lucy v Zehmer case on this channel. Every time i start trying to talk myself into law school, i watched it. Now i cant find it?
Prof. Coughlin - I want to engage more in this lecture but I'm having difficulty finding a reference to the case in question. Do you or anyone on this comment forum have access to that so I can read more on the facts of the case?
hey, is there any idea for foreigners like Korean to take knowledges on anglosaxon law system? Korean constitution is from japan from Germanany. Even I am a outsider of lawschool. I think I need some fine lecturers or texts...
@A. P. Heffel can’t believe I wrote this 4 years ago and here you are 1 month ago! I needed to revisit the lecture here and so glad I found your comment! Thank you!
One of the essential elements of the rule of Ipsa Loquiture, is that if an event or act or omission happened, while actually it was not supposed or expected to happen in the specific circumstances of the case, then there is a presumption or inference that the author of that act is deemed to be responsible for it, that is the meaning of the fact speaks for itself. However, the defendant can reverse such presumption, or such inference, by inducing sufficient evidence to convince the court to put aside such presumption which was based on Ipsa Loquiture rule. This rule was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, just as another rule of evidence that needs to be subject to the rules of relevancy, materiality, admissibility in court and credibility. As to the fact corroborating intent, the right word is that the mens rea could be inferred from conduct, if the evidence of such conduct leaves no doubt that it is intended to commit the crime. The corroboration means the testemony that strengthen the probative value of another evidence. The evidence of mens rea is separate from the evidence of actus reus.
Every professor showcased here is both articulate and engaging. That's tough to come by. I could only dream of being accepted into a program like this!
37:02 Indeed. Especially if my scenario is accurate. Don’t you have to demonstrate a causal link between a specific intention and a specific act beyond reasonable doubt? Or would balance of probabilities be sufficient?
Current List of Favorite Studies in College to take: 1. Botany 2 Mathematics 3 Chemistry 4. Economics 5. Biology 6. Computer Science 7. Astronomy 8. Political Science
I'm not a law student so I have no idea about these things but I find them interesting enough to listen to the classes. She mentioned the judge never gave general instructions on the overt act to the jury at all. Why would this be? A judge has decades of experience. Why would a judge with ample experience do something so drastic as to not provide the instructions on the overt act element to the jury?
Prosecuting for attempted crime means we're "ciminalization happy?" How is the person who fails in committing a crime less guilty than the person who succeeded?
With respect to the case... would it be advisable for both sides to break down the actions of the suspects and analyze the actions as to whether the actions, in and of themselves, we're an illegal act and, if not or if so, find evidence on either way? Also, wouldn't the satisfaction of evidence, be it REAL or intended or none at all, be proven to a reasonable person of the jury?
Perhaps suggesting that the students ask why their reading the case one time would have been sufficient, rather than continually repeating the point several times. Got it. Good lecture though.
