Law School Outline Example

Example 1: Torts (Negligence Unit)

The workhorse example, because negligence is the largest unit in most torts courses and the clearest showcase of element-driven structure:

II. NEGLIGENCE
   A. Elements: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) actual cause,
      (4) proximate cause, (5) damages
   B. DUTY
      1. Gen rule: reasonable care owed to foreseeable Ps
         (Palsgraf: unforeseeable P = no duty; Andrews
         dissent = duty to all, cut off at prox cause)
      2. No general duty to act/rescue
         a. Exceptions: special relationship (common
            carrier, innkeeper, custodian), D created
            peril, voluntary undertaking (once you start,
            reasonable care)
      3. Landowner duties: trespasser / licensee /
         invitee tiers (or unitary reasonable-care std
         in reform states)
      4. PROF: ran duty-to-warn hypo 3x. Expect
         psychiatrist/Tarasoff-style fact pattern.
   C. BREACH
      1. Objective reasonable person standard
         a. Kids: age/intelligence/experience std,
            EXCEPT adult activity (driving)
         b. Physical disability counted; mental not
      2. Custom: evidence of reasonableness, never
         conclusive (T.J. Hooper: whole industry can lag)
      3. Negligence per se: unexcused statute violation
         where P in protected class + harm of type
         statute prevents
      4. Res ipsa: (1) accident type doesn't happen
         w/o negligence, (2) instrumentality in D's
         control. Effect: gets P to jury.
   D. ACTUAL CAUSE
      1. But-for test (default)
      2. Multiple sufficient causes: substantial factor
      3. Alternative liability: burden shifts to Ds
         (Summers v. Tice, two hunters)
   E. PROXIMATE CAUSE
      1. Foreseeability of harm TYPE governs; extent
         and manner need not be foreseeable (eggshell
         P: take victim as found)
      2. Intervening vs. superseding causes: criminal
         acts + extraordinary natural events usually
         supersede; medical malpractice usually doesn't
      3. PROF: "prox cause is a policy question wearing
         a foreseeability costume." Quote-worthy.
   F. DAMAGES: actual harm required (no nominal
      damages in negligence)

The attack outline version of this same unit compresses to an issue checklist plus the tests you might blank on:

NEGLIGENCE: duty > breach > actual > prox > damages
- Duty: foreseeable P? no-duty-to-act exceptions?
  landowner tier?
- Breach: RP std / custom / neg per se / res ipsa
- Actual: but-for; mult sufficient = subst factor;
  Summers burden shift
- Prox: harm-type foreseeable? superseding act?
  eggshell P
- PROF TRAP: duty-to-warn hypo

Example 2: Contracts (Formation Unit)

Contracts outlines live and die on how cleanly they separate the formation questions, because exam fact patterns blur them on purpose:

I. FORMATION: offer + acceptance + consideration
   A. OFFER
      1. Manifestation of willingness to be bound,
         definite terms, directed at offeree
         (objective std: Lucy v. Zehmer, drunk "joke"
         sale still binds)
      2. NOT offers: ads (gen rule), price quotes,
         invitations to deal
         a. EXCEPT ad specific + leaves nothing open
            (Lefkowitz: "first come, 3 fur coats $1")
      3. Termination: revocation (effective on
         receipt), rejection/counteroffer, lapse,
         death
         a. Option K: consideration holds offer open
         b. Firm offer UCC 2-205: merchant + signed
            writing, 3-mo cap, no consideration needed
   B. ACCEPTANCE
      1. Mirror image rule (common law); deviation =
         counteroffer
      2. UCC 2-207 battle of the forms: acceptance
         despite new terms; between merchants new
         terms in UNLESS material/objection/offer
         limits
         - PROF: 2-207 flowchart drawn twice in class.
           Memorize the flowchart, not the prose.
      3. Mailbox rule: acceptance effective on
         dispatch (rejections + revocations on
         receipt)
      4. Silence: not acceptance EXCEPT prior
         dealings, benefit taken w/ opportunity to
         reject
   C. CONSIDERATION
      1. Bargained-for exchange; benefit to promisor
         OR detriment to promisee (Hamer v. Sidway:
         forgoing legal right = detriment)
      2. NOT consideration: past acts, moral
         obligation, illusory promises, pre-existing
         duty
         a. Pre-existing duty EXCEPT unforeseen
            circumstances or UCC (good faith mod
            needs no consideration, 2-209)
      3. Substitute: promissory estoppel (promise +
         foreseeable reliance + actual reliance +
         injustice w/o enforcement)

Example 3: Civil Procedure (Personal Jurisdiction Unit)

Civ pro rewards outlines that turn a century of case law into a decision sequence you can walk through on any fact pattern:

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION (analyze in this order)
   A. Traditional bases (any one suffices)
      1. Presence when served (Burnham: tag
         jurisdiction survives)
      2. Domicile
      3. Consent (express, implied, appearance)
   B. LONG-ARM + DUE PROCESS (if no traditional base)
      1. Step 1: state long-arm statute reaches D?
         (some = full constitutional limit; some
         enumerate)
      2. Step 2: minimum contacts (Int'l Shoe:
         "traditional notions of fair play +
         substantial justice")
         a. Purposeful availment req'd (Hanson;
            World-Wide VW: unilateral P contact not
            enough; foreseeability of suit, not of
            product arriving)
         b. Stream of commerce: mere awareness
            (Brennan) vs. targeting (O'Connor,
            Asahi split; McIntyre keeps split alive)
         c. Internet: sliding scale by
            interactivity (Zippo, persuasive not
            binding)
      3. Step 3: specific vs. general
         a. Specific: claim arises from forum
            contacts
         b. General: "essentially at home"
            (Daimler: incorporation + PPB, rarely
            more)
      4. Step 4: reasonableness factors (Asahi):
         burden on D, forum interest, P interest,
         efficiency, shared policy
   C. PROF: every PJ question on her old exams
      includes one internet-contact defendant.
      Zippo paragraph = free points.

Download Four Complete Real Outlines (Free PDFs)

The excerpts above show the method; these show the finished product. Four complete outlines from real 1L courses, exactly as they were used to sit the exams. Free, no signup. Use them the right way: as coverage checks and structural models for the outline you build yourself, not as substitutes for it.

Why These Work: The Four Annotations