A fact pattern from Halloween

Last Friday we went to my daughter’s first Halloween party.  My daughter is 10-month old, so she did not know anything about Halloween before the party and she still does not know much about it.  We dressed her in a cute pumpkin outfit:  bright orange rompers with matching boots and a hat with green leaves on top.  There were lots of kids and noise at the party.  She clung to Mommy and Daddy while watching the room with a bit of suspicion.  I am sure, she took in and learned a lot at that gathering, like all babies do all the time, but it was not about Halloween.  She was unfazed by a little boy in a Spider-Man’s costume and a tiny Ladybug.  We learn by building on what we already know and making new connections among familiar concepts. Halloween was not a relevant concept to her.

Law students know all about relevancy.  This little Halloween scenario is played out quite often at law exams.  You sit in a classroom, stare at a fact pattern in a Spider-Man’s costume, and wonder:  Why is it here?  What’s the legal significance of it?  How is it relevant to what I know about this subject?  I just can’t spot the issue.  Now, that is a scary thought! 

Go study and I will fill the candy baskets.