I'll take my quickie stop from studying to say:
Just identify the issue, apply the rule, look for the exception to the rule (if there is one for this situation/rule and there always is), mention it or apply it if it actually applies, then add some policy (if your prof likes that, or if you have time at the end of the test it never hurt to just throw some in). Cases should only be used as examples, or "this is same situation as blah blah". Also, most profs like "As was mentioned it class" since it makes them think you listened to them (haha). Most profs say they don't like IRAC (or whatever getting to maybe/LEEWS recommends) but its bs. They just want you to do shitty so they can curve the class easily.
In short, read the briefs and hornbook. Reading cases are near useless unless you need help understanding except...thats what the hornbook is for.
Also, just finished my take home final for patents. While I was doing it I thought of how most of the supreme court is pretty not technologically savvy in their private life (Roberts still has a beeper, wtf). I got to meet Ginsburg a while back, she mentioned how patents cases always is even more of a slog than usual because of this. When they make patents rulings, its always fun to read patents blogs cause they shit their pants.
Also, I have an alarming amount of "Multiple choice with explain your answer" this year. Like almost all of them. I don't have one test (outside of patents) that isn't multiple choice heavy. Which I'm fine with, and it makes sense, but its kind of weird because some of my profs are doing it because its "all the rage" I feel.