The essential louis armstrong disc 1 recordings 1925 30 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 65

The Essential Louis Armstrong: Disc 1 (Recordings 1925-30) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 229 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: Pets / Animals

LUNCH TODAY @ 12 :05 Allen Bhimani 3. Chung 4. Massey 5. McGivern 6. Olsen 7. Retenauer. LUNCH THURS @ 12:25 1. Barnes 2. Cappell 3. Hearn 4. Joyner 5. Parkins 6. Smittick 7. Tuchman .

Download Presentation

The Essential Louis Armstrong: Disc 1 (Recordings 1925-30)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


The essential louis armstrong disc 1 recordings 1925 30 l.jpg

LUNCH TODAY @ 12:05

Allen

Bhimani

3. Chung

4. Massey

5. McGivern

6. Olsen

7. Retenauer

LUNCH THURS @ 12:25

1. Barnes

2. Cappell

3. Hearn

4. Joyner

5. Parkins

6. Smittick

7. Tuchman

The Essential Louis Armstrong: Disc 1 (Recordings 1925-30)


Welcome back today l.jpg

Welcome Back! Today:

  • Mapping the Holding of Manning

  • Compare Mullett and Manning

  • Logistical Update

  • Albers under Mullett and Manning

  • The Logic of Albers (as time allows)


Mapping the holding of manning l.jpg

MAPPING THE HOLDING OF MANNING


Mapping the holding of manning4 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

The original owner retains property rights in an escapedanimal f.n.

[that had been owned for two yrs]

[that responded to its name]

[that has escaped and returned before]

[that had distinctive crest]

[that had been missing for only five days]

[that owner located day after it was found]


Mapping the holding of manning5 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

DQ44: Last Time

  • Exact scope of Manning holding unclear

  • Use other language from case to flesh out


Mapping the holding of manning6 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

The law of Georgia is, that to have property in animals, birds and fishes which are wild by nature, one must have them within his actual possession, custody or control, and this he may do by taming, domesticating, or confining them.

  • Could mean, “Once tamed, yours forever”, but structure of case suggests more complex rule

  • Could simply mean Mitcherson owned bird prior to escape.


Mapping the holding of manning7 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.

For Sweet, probably not an accident!

Probably means owner did not deliberately allow bird to fly free


Mapping the holding of manning8 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.

Likely true here; if so, why relevant?


Mapping the holding of manning9 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice.

Likely true here; if so, why relevant?

  • Only a short distance from point of escape?

  • Not returned to natural liberty? (although court doesn’t use this phrase)


Mapping the holding of manning10 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

The original owner retains property rights in an escapedanimal f.n.

[that had been owned for two yrs]

[that responded to its name]

[that has escaped and returned before]

[that had distinctive crest]

[that had been missing for only five days]

[that owner located day after it was found]

[that was captured a short distance away]


Mapping the holding of manning11 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice. WHY?

(This is rhetoric, not explanation. You need to do better.)


Mapping the holding of manning12 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To say that if one has a canary bird, mocking bird, parrot, or any other bird so kept and it should accidentally escape from its cage to the street, or to a neighboring house, that the first person who caught it would be its owner, is wholly at variance with our views of right and justice. WHY?

  • MAYBE: Unfair to OO; too close in time and distance to lose rights

  • MAYBE: Finder should know that there is prior OO, so shouldn’t keep it

  • MAYBE BOTH


Mapping the holding of manning13 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.

WHY THESE ANIMALS?


Mapping the holding of manning14 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion. WHY THESE ANIMALS?

  • MAYBE: Valuable (though canary much less)

  • MAYBE: Finder should know there is prior owner


Mapping the holding of manning15 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

Wild Animals of a Menagerie

  • Menagerie = Zoo (Not Usually Tamed)

  • Court specifically says “wild animals of a menagerie”

    Again, inconsistent with simple holding that OO retains any tamed animal


Mapping the holding of manning16 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

To hold that the traveling organist with his attendant monkey, if it should slip its collar, and go at will out of his immediate possession and control, and be captured by another person, that he would be the true owner and the organist lose all claim to it, is hardly to be expected; or that the wild animals of a menagerie, should they escape from their owner's immediate possession, would belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.

  • Again looks like short time/distance relevant.


Mapping the holding of manning17 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING

OO retains ppty rts in an escapedanimal f.n.:

[that had been owned for two yrs]

[that responded to its name]

[that has escaped and returned before]

[that had distinctive crest]

[that had been missing for only five days]

[that owner located day after it was found]

[that was captured a short distance away]

Lots of Broader Variations Possible


Mapping the holding of manning dq49 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.


Mapping the holding of manning dq4919 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.

Start by determining which facts of your current case seem helpful and which seem harmful to your client under Manning.


Mapping the holding of manning dq4920 l.jpg

Helpful to A

Owned for 3 Months

Responds to Name

Comfortable w Humans*

Identifying Markings

Helpful to B

Squirrel Travels “Across Town”*

No Prior Return

2 Months Before Found*

Markings Not Man-Made (apparently)*

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49


Mapping the holding of manning dq4921 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Squirrel hypo designed to get you to play with the holding in the way that litigators do, trying to find a plausible version helpful to their client’s position.

Try to craft holding that emphasizes helpful facts and minimizes harmful ones.


Mapping the holding of manning dq4922 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

  • Some student responses included broad and narrow versions of the holding. BUT

  • Playing with multiple versions of holding is an exercise we do to see what a case might mean in the future.

  • This exercise was to come up with a single version that is especially helpful to your position in your current case.


Mapping the holding of manning dq4923 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Sample for Alaina (narrow version; includes almost all helpful facts):

OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n.

  • that was previously under the owner’s control,

  • that responded to its name when called,

  • that had distinctive markings,

  • that had been missing for a short period of time and was located by the owner soon after [arguable]. -- Lauterbach


Mapping the holding of manning dq4924 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Sample for Alaina (broader versions; focuses on a few key facts):

OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. that is…

  • tamed to the extent that it knows its name and remembers its name after a significant period of time -- Beal

  • tamed, trained to answer by name, and marked in such a way as to make identification straightfor-ward – Parkins (similar by Douglas, Lauterbach)


Mapping the holding of manning dq4925 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Sample for Alaina (a little too broad):

OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. if it accidentally escapes from their immediate possession and comes under the control of another person.

Good idea to use language from case BUT:

  • No limit on time and distance

  • No reference to taming or marking

  • Looks like OO always wins; case doesn’t say that.


Mapping the holding of manning dq4926 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Sample for Brandon (narrow version; includes almost all helpful facts):

OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n.:

  • that was previously owned for two years,

  • that had escaped and returned before,

  • that had been missing for only a few days, and

  • that owner located day after it was found. -- Lauterbach


Mapping the holding of manning dq4927 l.jpg

Mapping the Holding of MANNING: DQ49

Sample for Brandon: (Focusing on Time as Key Element):

OO retains property rights in an escaped animal f.n. that had been possessed by the OO prior to escape for an amount of time substantially greater than the amount of time the animal was at large and substantially greater than the amount of time that the animal was possessed by the finder.--Douglas (with some editing )


Mullett v manning l.jpg

Mullettv. Manning


Mullett v manning mullett factors l.jpg

Mullett

Abandoned: Maybe

Animus Rev. No

Ret’d to NL Yes

Manning

No

Maybe

Maybe

Mullett v. Manning :MullettFactors


Mullett v manning manning factors l.jpg

Mullett

Tamed:

Marked.

Time

Owned

Out

Till Found

Distance

Manning

Yes

Man-Made

2 Yrs

4 Days

5 Days

Same Town

Mullett v. Manning :ManningFactors


Mullett v manning manning factors31 l.jpg

Mullett

Tamed: No Info

Marked; Blemishes

Time

Owned Unclear (Less)

Out 2 Weeks

Till Found 1 Year

Distance70 Miles

Manning

Yes

Man-Made

2 Years

4 Days

5 Days

Same Town

Mullett v. Manning :ManningFactors


Mullett v manning better case for oo dq47 l.jpg

Mullett

Abandoned: Maybe

Animus Rev. No

Ret’d to NLYes

Tamed: No Info

Marked; Blemishes

Time

Owned Unclear (Less)

Out 2 Weeks

Till Found 1 Year

Distance70 Miles

Manning

No

Maybe

Maybe

Yes

Man-Made

2 Years

4 Days

5 Days

Same Town

Mullett v. Manning :Better Case for OO (DQ47)


Mullett v manning better case for oo dq4733 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Better Case for OO (DQ47)

  • Manning is a better case for the OO on every factor explicitly made relevant by the two cases.


Mullett v manning better case for oo dq4734 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Better Case for OO (DQ47)

  • Manning is a better case for the OO on every factor explicitly made relevant by the two cases.

  • Very unusual. In exam hypos, situation often better on some factors, worse on others, so you have to discuss which factors outweigh the others and why.


Mullett v manning rule that covers both dq48 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Rule That Covers Both (DQ48)

Lesorgen Formulation #1

OO loses property rights in an escaped animal when the animal, without an intention to return, can provide for itself and is in its state of natural liberty.

  • Essentially a restatement of Mullett rule, so consistent with Mullett.

  • Consistent with Manningif you assume the canary could not have provided for itself.


Mullett v manning rule that covers both dq4836 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Rule That Covers Both (DQ48)

Lesorgen Formulation #2

OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the owner has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.


Mullett v manning rule that covers both dq4837 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Rule That Covers Both (DQ48)

OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the owner has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.

  • Mullett: ambiguous phrases might be met, especially if Mullett trained sea lion prior to escape. Might need to modify language.


Mullett v manning rule that covers both dq4838 l.jpg

Mullett v. Manning :Rule That Covers Both (DQ48)

OO retains ownership in an escaped wild animal if he can show a substantial connection between himself and the wild animal through taming, an intent to return, or any other acts of dominion for a sufficient time of possession, and the OO has not abandoned his search once the animal has escaped.

  • Manning: Last phrase might be too strict; we don’t know if Mitcherson had continued searching. Might want to modify language to read, “the OO has not unreasonably abandoned his search.”


Logistics l.jpg

LOGISTICS


Logistics40 l.jpg

LOGISTICS

Info Memo #3 Posted

  • Info for Students Taking My Midterm

  • Exam Tips (For Everyone)

  • Write-up of Mullett/Manning Briefs

  • Write-up of Review Problem #1

  • Review Problem #2

  • Briefing Instructions for Trial Court Opinions


Logistics41 l.jpg

LOGISTICS

  • Info Memo #3 Posted

    • Note: Responsible for Info Memo Content

  • Course Materials for Unit Two Posted

    • We’ll Start Unit Two Next Week

    • Assignment Sheet Updated After Class Today

    • Note: Kesler & DQs 56-58:

      • Listed for Friday; May Get Pushed to Monday

      • Should be MERCURY, not NEON

      • I’ll fix on Assmt. Sheet


Logistics42 l.jpg

LOGISTICS

  • Info Memo #3 Posted

  • Course Materials for Unit Two Posted

  • Midterm

    • Take Seriously If You Are Taking It

    • Office Hours 1:30-4:00 Saturday

    • I’ll Post Simultaneously on Course Page


Albers under mullett and manning l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 mullett factors from last time l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Mullett Factors (from last time)

  • Abandoned: Only by Compulsion

  • Animus Rev. No

  • Ret’d to NL Probably Yes


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Evidence?

    • Fox took food from Hand

    • Court says “Semi-Domesticated”

      Less than in Manning. Enough?

      If unsure, check for reason behind rule


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors46 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Evidence?

    • Fox took food from Hand

    • Court says “Semi-Domesticated”

      Evidence of Labor or Personal Connection?

      Not much, so unlikely to be considered tamed.


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors47 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING: Tattoos in Ears

    How strong is mark?


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors48 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING: Tattoos: How Strong?

    • 335 = Clearly Man-Made (Maybe Not 1)

    • Maybe Hard for Non-Expert to Find?

    • Unlikely to Disappear

    • Identifies Owner

    • Industry Practice

      Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors49 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING:

    • Tattoos: Quite Strong

    • Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?

      • Type of Fox Unknown in Area

      • Industry Well-Known in Area


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors50 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING:

    • Tattoos: Quite Strong

    • Other Facts Giving Notice to Finder?

      • Type of Fox Unknown in Area

      • Industry Well-Known in Area


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors51 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING/NOTICE: Better than Manning

  • TIME & DISTANCE

    • Animal Owned 2 Weeks Before Escape

    • Animal Ran 6 Miles Before Being Killed

    • Animal Killed1 Day After Escape

    • Unknown Time Before O Discovered Pelt

      Significance?


Albers under mullett and manning dq50 manning factors52 l.jpg

Albers under Mullett and Manning:DQ50 Manning Factors

  • TAMING: Less than Manning

  • MARKING/NOTICE: Better than Manning

  • TIME & DISTANCE

    • Prior to Escape: Less than Manning

    • After Escape:Similar to Manning

      Overall result unclear; might argue it’s like escaped menagerie animal, so back to OO


The logic of albers l.jpg

The Logic of Albers


The logic of albers54 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS

  • DOMESTICATED OR WILD

  • ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

  • WHAT THE CASE HOLDS

  • CRITIQUE


The logic of albers domesticated or wild l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: DOMESTICATED OR WILD

Parties’ Presumption: 2 Available Rules

  • Rule for Wild Animals (Mullett/Blkstone) under which finder (D) wins

  • Rule for Domestic Animals under which Original Owner (P) wins

    Leads to sequence of arguments about whether fox is wild or domestic


The logic of albers domesticated or wild56 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: DOMESTICATED OR WILD

DQ52d p.40: “Counsel for defendant insists that whether an animal be wild or domestic must be determined from the species, not from the individual.”

D wants Mullett rule, so wants animal to be wild. Argues that all foxes are wild.

Court says no; nature of animus rev. indicates that you look at individual animals


The logic of albers domesticated or wild57 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: DOMESTICATED OR WILD

p.41: “Nor has birth in captivity anything to do with the question. A wild cat may be just as wild if born in a cage as if born on a mountainside.”

P must have argued that animal is “domesticated” if born in captivity (so fox here is domesticated).

Court disagrees in this passage.


The logic of albers domesticated or wild58 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: DOMESTICATED OR WILD

DQ52c p.39: Plaintiff argued that “foxes are taxable in this state, hence the common-law rule as to domesticated animals applies….”

Gist of P’s argument is “You are making me pay taxes on foxes as a valuable asset; only fair to treat them as domesticated animals (which are similarly taxed).

Court doesn’t address directly, but same is likely true for zoo animals, and tax system is separate legal structure not binding here


The logic of albers domesticated or wild59 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: DOMESTICATED OR WILD

p.41: “Mr. Black's definition of domestic animals as ‘such as contribute to the support of a family or the wealth of a community’ would include all fur-bearing animals held in captivity, wherever born or however wild.”

Again, P must have raised this definition as including fur foxes. The court rejects the definition as too inclusive, thus inconsistent with requiring individualized determination.


The logic of albers60 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS

  • DOMESTICATED OR WILD

  • ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

  • WHAT THE CASE HOLDS

  • CRITIQUE


The logic of albers addressing prior authority l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

p.41: Discussion of legal connection between tort liability and property rights:

We’ll come back to with Kesler


The logic of albers addressing prior authority62 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

pp.40-41: These authorities are rather confusing than enlightening, and even suggest that one modification of the rule would permit the owner to recover if he could identify his property. We know of no case so applying it (save those dealing with bees), and the injustice of its application to one who captures or kills ordinary wild animals which have escaped from restraint and returned to their natural habitat is apparent. “Even” means?


The logic of albers addressing prior authority63 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

pp.40-41: “[O]ne modification of the rule would permit the owner to recover if he could identify his property. … [T]he injustice of its application to one who captures or kills ordinary wild animals which have escaped from restraint and returned to their natural habitat is apparent.”

DQ53: To whom is it unjust? Why?


The logic of albers addressing prior authority64 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

p.41: “We take no notice of” cases involving theft from traps & cages and theft of dogs because they are “wholly inapplicable.”

Orig. Owner would win all these cases, so P must have raised them.

“Wholly inapplicable” because they involve either domestic animals or animals completely within control of owner.


The logic of albers addressing prior authority65 l.jpg

THE LOGIC OF ALBERS: ADDRESSING PRIOR AUTHORITY

DQ52a: Campbell (Ontario)

Who do you think won the case?

What is the significance of the Ontario statute “correcting” the case to the logic of Albers?


  • Login