Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T07:57:03.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some reflections on the case method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Russell L. Weaver
Russell L. Weaver*
Affiliation:
University of Louisville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1870, Christopher Columbus Langdell introduced the case method of teaching at Harvard, and dramatically altered the course of legal education in the United States. His method, involving student examination of judicial decisions coupled with Socratic style analysis, ultimately gained widespread acceptance. Today, most US law teachers use the case method. They continue, to varying degrees, to use Socratic questioning as part of that method. But, despite the method's widespread adoption, it has always had critics including both law students and law teachers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , July 1991 , pp. 155 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. See A. J. Harno, Legal Education in the United States (1953).

2. See Blum & Lobaco, ‘The Case Against the Case System’ (1984) 4 Cal Lwyr; Boyer & Cramton, ‘American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform’ (1974) 59 Cornell L Rev 221, 224.

3. See Johnstone, , ‘Student Discontent and Educational Reform in the Law Schools’ (1970) 23 J Legal Educ 255 Google Scholar.

4. See Byse, , ‘Fifty Years of Legal Education’ (1986) 71 Iowa L Rev 1063, 1064–65Google Scholar.

5. Sutherland, A., The Law at Harvard (1967) 161 Google Scholar.

6. See Chase, , ‘The Birth of the Modern Law School’ (1979) 23 Am L Legal Hist 329, 334–35Google Scholar.

7. Ames, J., Lectures on Legal History (1913) 354, 362 Google Scholar; J. Redlich, The Common Law and the Case Method in American University Law Schools: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1914) 7 Bull #8 (hereinafter Redlich Report); Address by Henry Wade Rogers, Chair of the ABA's Section of Legal Education, annual meeting (1894), reprinted in (1894) 17 Rep ABA 389, 404 [hereinafter Rogers' Address].

8. Redlich Report, supra note 7, at 7; Rogers' Address, supra note 7, at 404.

9. Parma, ‘The Origin, History and Compilation of the Casebook’ (1923) 4 Am L Sch Rev 741, 742.

10. See Hammond, ‘Proper Course of study for American Law Schools’ (1892) 26 Am L Rev 705 [hereinafter Hammond Report]; Redlich Report, supra note 7, at 8.

11. See Address by Simon Baldwin, ABA's Section on Legal Education, annual meeting, reprinted in (1894) 17 Rep ABA 37578 [hereinafter Baldwin Address].

12. See Fessenden, , ‘The Rebirth of the Harvard Law School’ (1920) 33 Harv L Rev 493, 498CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Batchelder, ‘Christopher Columbus Langdell’ (1906) 18 The Green Bag 439, 437; Fessenden, supra note 8, at 495.

14. See Fessenden, supra note 12, at 500; Address by William Keener, ABA's Section of Legal Education (1894), reprinted in (1894) 17 Rep ABA 488—89 [hereinafter Keener Report]; Keener, ‘Methods of Legal Education’ (1892) I Yale LJ 143, 144 [hereinafter Keener Article]; Redlich Report, supra note 7, at 12–13; but see Hutchins, ‘Legal Education’ (1937) 4 v Chi L Rev 357.

15. See Address by Amasa M. Eaton, ABA's Section of Legal Education (1894), reprinted in (1894) 17 Rep ABA 378.

16. See Redlich Report, supra note 7, at 12.

17. Id.

18. Id.

19. Address by Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to the Harvard L Sch A, 1886, in C. Warren, History of the Haruard Law School (1980) 374; see also Frank, ‘A Plea for Lawyer-Schools’ (1947) 56 Yale LJ 1303, 1304.

20. See Frank, supra note 19, at 1304; A. J. Harno, supra note 1, at 61–62.

21. C. C. Langdell, A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts (1871) viii.

22. Id.

23. See Ames, supra note 7, at 13; Blum & Lobaco, supra note 2, at 31; Boyer & Cramton, supra note 2, at 224.

24. See Chase, supra note 6, at 330.

25. See Baldwin, ‘Teaching Law By Cases’ (1900–01) 14 Harv L Rev 258; Gilmore, ‘Some Criticisms of Legal Education’ (1921) 7 ABA 227.

46. See Byse, supra note 4, at 1066–67; A.J. Harno, supra note 1, at 169; Parma, supra note 9, at 743.

27. See Frank, supra note 19, at 1313; G. Gilmore, supra note 25, at 42-48.

28. See Chase, , ‘A Comparison of the Use of Treatises and the Use of Case-Books in the Study of Law’ (1923) 4 Am L Sch Rev 81 Google Scholar; A.J. Harno, supra note 1, at 63.

29. See Letter to the editors of Yale Law Journal, reprinted in ‘Methods of Legal Instruction’ (1892) 1 Yale LJ 139, 160.

30. See Eliot, , ‘Langdell and the Law School’ (1920) 33 Haw L Rev 518, 423Google Scholar; Keener Report, supra note 14, at 482.

31. Keener Report, supra note 14, at 480–81.

32. Nelson, ‘Dean Harno's “Ferment in Legal Education in the United States” (1953–54) 22 UKC L Rev 144, 153.

33. See Fessenden, supra note 12, at 502; A. J. Harno, supra note 1, at 64; Keener Report, supra note 14, at 482.

34. See Blum & Lobaco, supra note 2, at 31.

35. Leach, W. Barton, ‘Property Law Taught in Two Packages’ (1948) 1 J Legal Educ 28, 29Google Scholar.

36. Id.

37. See A. H. Hano, supra note 1, at 124–25 (quoting W. Barton Leach, supra note 35, at 29).

38. See Gray, supra note 29, at 160.

39. J. Ames, supra note 7, at 364; Eliot, supra note 30, at 523; Fessenden, supra note 12, at 513–14.

40. Parma, supra note 9, at 743 (quoting James Barr Ames, Address to the Association of American Law Schools (1907)).

41. See Brandeis, 'The Harvard Law School, (1899) 1 The Green Bag 10, 21; Keener Report, supra note 23, at 482.

42. See Keener Report, supra note 14, at 480.

43. Llewellyn, K., The Common Law Tradition (1960) 62–120 Google Scholar; Oberer, On Law, Lawyering, and Law Professing: The Golden Sand (1989) 39 J Legal Educ 203.

44. See Gray, supra note 29, at 159.

45. See K. Llewellyn, supra note 43, at 24–25.

46. 338 US 25 (1949).

47. 367 US 643 (1961).

48. 367 US at 672.

49. See K. Llewellyn, supra note 43, at 84–86.

50. See Lean v United States 468 US 897 (1984).

51. Id.

52. See Bryson, , ‘The Problem Method Adapted to Case Books’ (1974) 26 J Legal Educ 594 Google Scholar; Oleck, , ‘The “Adversary Method of Law Teaching”’ (1952) 5 J Legal Educ 104 Google Scholar.

53. Hurst, J. W., The Growth of American Law (1950) 265 Google Scholar.

54. A. J. Harno, supra note I, at 139.

55. Hutchins, supra note 14, at 357–58; Llewellyn, ‘On What is Wrong With So-called Legal Education’ (1935) 35 Colum L Rev 651,666; J. Paul, The Legal Realism of Jerome Frank (1959) 237–38.

56. Doyel, , ‘The Clinical Lawyer School: Has Jerome Frank Prevailed?’ (1983) 18 New Eng L Rev 577, 581-82Google Scholar.

57. See Byse, supra note 4, at 1064.

58. See Clark, , ‘“Practical Legal Training” An Illusion’ (1951) 3 J Legal Educ 423, 424–25Google Scholar.

59. See Byse, supra note 4, at 1064.

60. See Keener Report, supra note 14, at 480–81.

61. Llewellyn, , ‘The Current Crisis in Legal Education’ (1948) 1 J Legal Educ 211, 216Google Scholar.

62. See J. W. Hurst, supra note 54, at 264.

63. See Batchelder, supra note 13, at 439; Beale, ‘Professor Langdell-His Later Teaching Days’ (1906) 20 Harv L Rev 9.

64. See Batchelder, supra note 13, at 439; J. W. Hurst, supra note 54, at 512.

65. See Fessenden, supra note 12, at 506.

66. Williston, , ‘James Barr Ames-His Services to Legal Education’ (1909) 23 Harv L Rev 330, 332Google Scholar.

67. See G. Gilmore, supra note 25, at 59–60.

68. Fessenden, supra note 12, at 506.

69. C. C. Langdell, supra note 21, at viii.

70. Id.

71. Id.

72. Id.

73. Keener Report, supra not? 14, at 481–82.

74. See A. J. Harno, supra note 1, at 152–153; Osborn, , ‘A Casebook on Thought and Reasoning’ (1925) 5 Am L Sch Rev 534 Google Scholar.

75. See Oberer, supra note 43, at 203.

76. See eg, New York v Quarles 467 US 649 (1984).

77. Compare Mapp v Ohio 367 US 643 (1961) with Leon v United States 468 US 897 (1984).

78. See Brandeis, supra note 41, at 20.

79. See Brink, , ‘Legal Education For Competence-A Shared Responsibility’ (1981) 59 Wash Univ LQ 591, 593Google Scholar.

80. Fessenden, supra note 12, at 506.

81. See J. Henderson & R. Pearson, The Torts Process (2nd edn, 1981).