Best civil law procedure books according to redditors

The Innocent Man. It was largely responsible for the answer that I give when people ask me why I am an ADA- Someone is going to do this job. I trust myself to question, to work, not to slide into laziness or complacency. I don't trust others to do a job this important. I do it because it matters.

But as for why the law in general? When I was in high school I read The Tempting of America. I could not have disagreed with it more strongly. I STILL inherently disagree with basically the entirety of Robert Bork's jurisprudence. However, it was an eye opener- this is what "the law" is about. It showed me that the law can have both big ideas and petty squabbles, and that they can both be equally interesting.

So it's cool when T_D bans people because they should be allowed to set the rules for their subreddit but it's "censorship" when LGTB sets the rules for their subreddit.

Gotcha.

EDIT: Recommend reading for the confused individuals below, the excellent book Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other by Nat Hentoff.

Supplements aren't essential, but they can be one of many tools you use. I rely heavily on supplements and have done very well in law school. Here are the one's I used for those courses:

Civil Procedure: The Glannon Guide and the E&E (also by Glannon).

Criminal Law: Understanding Criminal Law by Dressler.

Property: Understanding Property by Sprankling and Siegel's Property.

I recommend this to everyone, and it helped me get the A+ in Civ Pro, and an A in Civ Pro II: Acing Civil Procedure.

It gives you easy to remember summaries of all the topics in a way that's digestible for an Exam. My issue with Erie was that the cases made it seem far more complex than it actually is. This gave me a good overview, as well as helpful examples to make sure I understood all the edge cases that might come up on an exam.

It also helps give you the layout for the actual standard for Personal Jurisdiction. I often found it a bit confusing to understand what applied now for Personal JX, and this helped clarify that as well. Very helpful, and very cheap compared to other supplements.

Try this. Click on the "Look Inside" link on the left and scroll down to "Hawkins v Masters Farm." The professor and the frequency of the class would depend on how far you'd have to read as a daily assignment.

Fellow far-lefty. Had a Marxist phase in high school, campaigned full-time for Kerry, voted Obama. Carried a flag at the Gay Games, protested in the street against the Iraq War, long-term boyfriend is from South America.

I'm not there yet as a Trump supporter, as I can't stomach his tax policy that would exacerbate inequality and his stance on climate change that I consider criminally insane.

But I love this sub because I can't stand the two-faced, whiny, bitter, infantile, divisive strand of leftism which I see rampant among friends and former friends. The sheer idiocy of gay people scared of Trump, but not scared of a woman that embraced them 10 years after he did; of leftists claiming to look out for the little guy but supporting open borders from Barrow to Tierra del Fuego - because you know what will help the little guy, opening the labor market to several hundred million people with a lower payscale!

The Democratic Party has lost me with two mistakes - embracing Wall Street while abandoning attempts to reduce wealth inequality, and delving into the Byzantine world of identity politics. Who gives a fuck if one baker from rural Oklahoma won't bake a gay marriage cake? This is not a human rights abuse. GTFO.

edit: This has been brewing for a long time, however. More than 20 years ago someone put my hands on Free Speech for me - but not for thee and I've been bothered by the sanctimonious, censorious left for a long time. But that toxic left seems to have become the left itself.

Dude, all of this is wrong. I am actually almost certain you're fucking with me. Statutory law is law written into statute. Common Law is law found in precedent from prior decisions; look up stare decisis and precedent.

Equity and admiralty are not jurisdictions, they're types of law. Also, there are more than those. The constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction for certain types of cases, amdiralty being one of them.

Your read up and understanding of Erie is off as well. Erie essentially says that diversity cases(a type of jurisdiction under the constitution) does not allow federal courts to make common law. Rather, they have to use one of the states from the diversity plaintiffs.

Read this and get back to me.

not only that, the chain of evidence must be established to ensure that the samples were not tampered with. regarding scientific evidence, the scientist being questioned must have their credentials verified and the judge has to formally FIND the witness admitted as an expert witness, depending on the jurisdiction the Frye Test or Daubert would control. Evidentiary Foundations is a GREAT resource for how to lay proper foundation for testimony.

I'll probably get down voted for this but... try reading "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork. Yeah, the controversial conservative judge. An upperclassman suggested I read this during my Con Law class, and it was a much more interesting way to understand a lot of the conservative vs. liberal wrangling over cases like Roe v Wade. I think it will be a good read even if you lean to the left.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tempting-America-Robert-Bork/dp/0684843374

P.S. good choice of careers. Personally I'm pushing my kids to fields like C.S. versus the law.

More info here, Fully Informed Jury Association: www.fija.org

This book gives a complete history of the issue:

Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine

(http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-Evolution-Clay-Conrad/dp/0890897026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304054180&sr=8-1-spell)

I practice PI defense and found Winning at Deposition to be amazing: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Deposition-Highest-Professional-Excellence/dp/0985027177. The only drawback is that PI defense is state law and this book, like most deposition guides, focuses on federal rules.

Be sure to read every rule in your jurisdiction concerning depositions. It won't take more than an hour, but the knowledge you learn is invaluable. I'm constantly amazed and embarrassed at how few attorneys do this.

I would also read as many deposition transcripts as possible. You'll quickly be able to pick up on the tricks and strategies that make depositions successful. Ask fellow attorneys at your firm for names of cases involving similar allegations to your current case. Each time you have to prepare to depose a certain type of witness (plaintiff, plaintiff's spouse/children, treating physician, voc rehab, economist, etc), read two or three depositions of similar witnesses from those cases. This will help you create your outline because you'll see that many of the same topics are covered in each dep.

Try to get your outlines finished a week before the depositions. Share them and discuss them with the supervising attorney(s) on the case. Ask for their feedback. They will be able to help refine the outlines and should offer pointed advice as to what information you should focus on during the deposition.

Finally, remember that everyone was a new attorney. You're going to be nervous and trip up and take longer to get where you want to go the first few times you take a deposition. Jerk attorneys will act annoyed and try to bully you. Ignore them.

Passing the bar was the hard part. Taking depositions is easy!

Good luck. You're gonna kick ass!

I used this back in the day for exam prep.

http://www.amazon.com/Acing-Civil-Procedure-Benjamin-Spencer/dp/0314166300

https://www.amazon.com/Acing-Civil-Procedure-Spencer/dp/1628100419

Recommended by users of this sub. I purchased it and I'm using it now, its helpful.

We need to be careful whenever we engage in "rights" talk, though (see [Mary Ann Glendon's book on the subject] (http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Talk-Impoverishment-Political-Discourse/dp/0029118239/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1372372374&sr=8-3&keywords=Mary+Ann+Glendon)). We are still feeling our way down a dark corridor on what "expectation of privacy" means in cyberspace, for instance. And it simply won't do to assert an unlimited expectation of privacy...

Szasz's "Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry Into the Social Uses of Mental Health Practices" is a good read, too.

Evidentiary Foundations by Imwinkelried. Great book. Schooled some DAs with it.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidentiary-Foundations-Edward-J-Imwinkelried/dp/0820554170

I am no lawyer so I am not really able to go to details of the problem. I would suggest you reading "The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System" by Benjamin H. Barton

https://www.amazon.com/Lawyer-Judge-Bias-American-Legal-System/dp/110761614X

>Virtually all American judges are former lawyers. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law. There are many reasons for this bias, some obvious and some subtle. Fundamentally, it occurs because - regardless of political affiliation, race, or gender - every American judge shares a single characteristic: a career as a lawyer. This shared background results in the lawyer-judge bias. The book begins with a theoretical explanation of why judges naturally favor the interests of the legal profession and follows with case law examples from diverse areas, including legal ethics, criminal procedure, constitutional law, torts, evidence, and the business of law. The book closes with a case study of the Enron fiasco, an argument that the lawyer-judge bias has contributed to the overweening complexity of American law, and suggests some possible solutions.

> Oh it wasn't close to Jalikattu on a political/social/emotional scale, but it was absolutely brutal. My point is mainly that when people want to do this kind of stuff, they'll find a way. With regulation, there's at least a pull towards doing things the legal way at the very least due to risk of punishment.

I asked this question because, on Jan 15, Sec 144 IPC was imposed at all the usual places where Jallikattu takes place. I would still like to know what were the ceremonies because, if it is large enough, the police will have no problem stopping them.

> I mean as long as we're altering culture, we might as well also change the culture of these kinds of bodies that have a large impact on actual human lives.

Just think of cricket or a football match, how many times the rules are broken even with cameras and officials. The problems compound themselves when it comes to Jalliakttu because the people who enter the sport with their bull are sometimes bigshots it is not so simple to directly confront them when they "charge up their bulls" and the loser is always the bull.

> However, such injuries should be able to be minimized to the extent that I wouldn't think it to be a serious concern (probably another point we're going to fundamentally disagree on).

yes, this we do disagree on.

> Because the government is equally if not moreso incompetent than the previously mentioned regulatory bodies.

I'll never be the one who to call the government competent but social welfare in TN is tremendously good (relatively). This book gave so many insights on how well some programs worked to stop female foeticide through the 'Golden Cradle' scheme and a number of other programs. Gives me some hope because there is so much good will to protect the indigenous species right now that if there is political will behind it, I think it will succeed.

The govt. program, which already exists in Thanjavur, is not perfect but it won't end up harming the bulls but that is not the case in Jallikattu. That's why I think it is the obvious solution.

> I think the threat of a fine/jail is a much better motivator than some moral argument I can make.

Yes, but the bull will always be the loser.

Zamindars are landlords/rich farmers in a village. Thaluk or a Thaluka is a constituency of a few villages.

Haven't actually read it, so I don't know if it's any good, but I wish I could find the time to read The Litigation State. Maybe that's something you'd be interested in.

I used these barcharts to frame my outlines for contracts, torts, and civpro. The charts logically flow from one topic to the next. Also, the Barbri videos for civpro in the 1L mastery package are worth the ~$80 (plus some areas have barbri lectures).
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-Quickstudy-Inc-BarCharts/dp/157222956X

https://www.amazon.com/Procedure-Concepts-Insights-Samuel-Issacharoff/dp/1683287061

This was a great and short supplement for me

Great American Trials - I had fun reading this one!

It’s been along time since I was in law school, but this series allowed me to book several classes, one of which I learned nothing from the professor and all from this book. Seriously good study companion. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-6th-Examples-Explanations/dp/0735570337/ref=asc_df_0735570337/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=266180140297&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11575953741332550370&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=200534&hvtargid=pla-804780658992&psc=1

It’s particularly helpful because it has little worksheets at the end of each chapter that allows you to apply the lessons of each chapter, unlike most treatises that just summarize it for you. It’s a practical guide, and it helps immensely with understanding the concepts and being able to apply it to different backgrounds.

>Arguments are expected to be supported with reason and data, and not only authority.

Agreed friend!

This:
>"Well, the Bible says...".

Is an absolutely terrible reason to believe in anything.

What's troubling is when my friends claim rights impede social progress and are ridiculed simply because they quote a Christian author.

I am not sure if there is a better source out there, but he did write a book that gives some insight into his legal reasoning that you might find helpful:

"The Tempting of America" Robert Bork

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tempting-America-Robert-Bork/dp/0684843374

I just started Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and I loved Unbillable Hours.

Google brought me here: https://www.amazon.com/Kentucky-Evidence-Law-Handbook/dp/0327163267

and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Lawson

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/006019006X

There is a fantastic book by Mary Ann Glendon called Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse that addresses this issue quite eloquently. If you haven't read it, please do. It is a very important book.

Here it is on Amazon

EDIT: As a preamble to my response, sorry for above, it was ruder than I intended. Too often people blather on with inane/extreme argument, and I get impatient. It wasn't fair of me to respond in such a way.

Honestly, as someone with a PoliSci background, it's debatable (not being a smartass, btw).

Firstly, not just the first 10 are. Im pretty sure everyone has the natural right to NOT be a slave, but that wasn't promised until the 13th.

Depending on perspective, it can be said that only 1, 13, 15, and 19 are. The overall argument being that natural rights refer to those bestowed by God/the universe/and everything. Your personal right to speak, right to belief, right to self-determination, etc. These are your natural rights.

Snarky example: did God make that AK for you, personally? Oh, no? Then it ain't a natural right.

Serious example: goverment is charging you with something and you need representation/want to face your accuser/etc? Government has a regiment of soldiers stashed in your house? (FYI, I believe these are terrible things)

These are legal rights/issues, NOT those bestowed by the universe et all.

Ultimately, no, our amendments are not our natural rights -- they are an early attempt at formally codifying what were believed to be the primary rights of an individual. But, these were heavily determined by the perspectives of those doing the writing--thoughtful, philosophical, industrious, rebellious, white male, land/business owners. Non-whites were all but excluded excluded from our so-called natural rights because they were widely seen as lesser beings in enlightenment thought. The amendments reflect well-meaning, but outdated sentiments. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights is, in many ways, like the Magna Carta. A revolutionary (literally) document that should be treasured for its historical perspectives, but is ultimately useless to the modern world.

On a different note, too often people claim things as rights that are not, in fact, rights. It's an inefficient way to frame arguments. For example, when smoking bans were first discussed: "We should ban smoking in public places because it impacts my right to clean air!" "We should NOT ban smoking in public places because it's my right to smoke where I please!"

This is unhealthy, ineffectual, and is largely responsible for the failures of our current systems. Here is an interesting book on the subject.


This is not an attempt to preach one-sided politics or be obtuse, just an honest reflection.

EDIT 2: Formatting & TL;DR - Founding fathers were pretty cool guys, but they didn't know everything. As a nation we need to learn to accept, and address this.