How and What to Outline

1. Follow a traditional outline structure Use a regular outline format because it differentiates between levels. The structure of an outline forces you to rank concepts and identify main topics and sub-topics. The law is a set of categories: each principle you learn belongs “somewhere” in the scheme which you need to create.

   A failure to properly understand and define the hierarchy of concepts in your outline often manifests on the exam with difficulty in identifying and sequencing issues for discussion. There is a logical sequence to follow in analyzing a problem based on the construction of the rule and it’s essential that this hierarchy be worked through in the process of creating your outline.

   Coordinate the Table of Contents with your syllabus to find your starting point and use it as a template to form your skeleton outline. Once you have a sense of the main topics and sub-topics, you can begin to fill in the pieces to provide substance and meaning.
2. Organize by rule The organizing principle of outlining is the rule, not the case. While you learn the rules case by case, when it comes to outlining, you strip everything away and all that remains are the rules: definitions, elements, factors, exceptions, and defenses. These are your building blocks. Be prepared to ask and answer the following questions for each principle you include in your outline:
   1. What is the rule? How is it defined?
   2. How does it work? Under what facts/circumstances is it likely to occur?
   3. What does it require? Are there any tests or factors which must be met?
   4. Are there limitations to the rule?
   5. What is the consequence of applying the rule?
      • What happens to the parties as a result?
      • Is there a change in their position and what is it?
3. Provide depth, detail, and specificity Your outline must be written in sufficient detail to allow you to learn the rules with specificity. You can’t afford to be overly cryptic. If your outline makes only general statements, then you’ll learn only in generalities and you’re defeating the very purpose of outlining. Still, you can’t get so bogged down in detail that you lose sight of the big picture. The goal is to include sufficient detail without diminishing the outline’s utility as a study tool. What’s necessary to really “know” a rule?
   
   

   1		Define the rule Provide detail and context:
   •		Are there elements? Factors? Tests?
   •		When does it apply?
   •		When does it arise?
   •		How is it used?
   •		Applications/ examples?
   		Identify limitations:
   •		Are there exceptions?/ Limitations?
   •		Are there defenses?
   2		Identify the consequences of applying the rule
   •		What happens if this rule is applied?
   •		What is the likely result, effect on the parties, outcome to the dispute?

   
   
   1. Define the rule
      The starting point is a basic definition. But the definition is just a starting point. It’s far from all you need to know or write in your outline or on the exam. You must flesh out the basic definition with sufficient detail to provide context to allow you to learn the rule in its entirety. As the checklist indicates, you must consider whether the rule breaks down by element (usually in Torts and Criminal Law) or by factor (typically Contracts, Constitutional Law and Property, to name a few). In these cases, you need to define and explain each of the elements or factors.

      Every rule demands separate treatment because each rule “breaks down” differently. Some are composed of elements; others are assessed by evaluating factors or tests. Moreover, for every “general” rule you’ll learn, there’ll be exceptions or at least limitations on its reach and application. By using the checklist as you approach a rule for inclusion in your outline, you’ll be sure to consider all the possible qualifications.

   2. Identify the consequences of applying the rule
      This step is essential. Failure to consider the consequences of a rule tends to manifest in the application portion of the exam essay — not necessarily as a conclusory or cryptic analysis, but one that fails to link to the probable outcome. You can avoid this result by addressing the following questions with respect to each rule you include in your outline:
      • What happens if a court finds this rule applicable? What actions will it take?
      • What is the likely result/outcome/effect? Where does it leave the parties?