Ian whitcomb titanic music as heard on the fateful voyage
Download
1 / 27

FRI 94 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 328 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage Liesner v. Wanie TRIAL RECORD Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie) Wanie must have argued: L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf L-Boys did not continue pursuit BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING? Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie) Wanie must have argued:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'FRI 94' - oshin


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

Liesner v wanie l.jpg
Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL

RECORD


Phosphorus dq19 wanie l.jpg
Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)

Wanie must have argued:

  • L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf

  • L-Boys did not continue pursuit

    BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?


Phosphorus dq19 wanie4 l.jpg
Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)

Wanie must have argued:

  • L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf

  • L-Boys did not continue pursuit

    BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?

  • Wanie testimony re wound

  • Earlier pursuit & shots that hit wolf

    OTHER?


Zinc dq19 liesners l.jpg
ZINC: DQ19 (Liesners)

Liesners must have argued:

  • L-Boys did mortally wound wolf

  • L-Boys did continue pursuit

    BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?


Dq20 trial judge s perspective l.jpg
DQ20: Trial Judge’s Perspective

  • He must believe:

    • Abdomen shot was mortal wound (“gut shot”; wolf’s behavior)

    • Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound was Liesner shot (bullet/angle)

  • Keep in Mind

    • Judge probably had experience with guns & hunting

    • Judge could see pelt & holes


Why no ratione soli l.jpg
Why No Ratione Soli?

  • Apparently not claimed

  • Maybe: Lawyer’s Mistake or Owner Unaware

  • Maybe: Unowned or unclaimed land or custom to allow hunt

  • Maybe 1st Liesner shot on Liesner land & death on Wanie land


Phosphorus dq21 l.jpg
PHOSPHORUS: DQ21

What relevance do the additional facts found in the trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion?


Liesner v wanie9 l.jpg
Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL RECORD:

Questions?


1902 1908 1914 l.jpg
1902  1908  1914

Brief Musical Interlude


Calcium l.jpg

Calcium:

Shaw Brief


Calcium shaw brief l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?


Calcium shaw brief13 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

CRIMINAL CASE

Government always brings the suit

  • State charged X with [name of crime]

  • Criminal action against X for [name of crime]

    Relief requested always is incarcera-tion or fines; can leave unstated.


Calcium shaw brief14 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

State charged 3 defendants (including Thomas & Shaw) who removed fish from nets belonging to others with grand larceny.


Calcium shaw brief15 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

PROCEDURAL POSTURE?


Calcium shaw brief16 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

  • Thomas was indicted and tried.

  • At the close of the state’s evidence, the Court directed a verdict for Thomas.

  • The state excepted [appealed].


Calcium shaw brief17 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

FACTS

We’ll do next week!


Calcium shaw brief18 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?


Calcium shaw brief19 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant …


Calcium shaw brief20 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?

  • Directed verdict means state’s evidence was insufficient to show the crime.

    • What did Trial Court think was missing here?

    • Why did it matter?


Calcium shaw brief21 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?

  • Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the net-owner if some fish can escape from nets (perfect net rule)

  • What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s position?


Calcium shaw brief22 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?

  • Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the netowner when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”)

  • State says net need not be perfect to create property rights in net-owners.


Calcium shaw brief23 l.jpg
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendanton the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because owners of nets cannot have property rights in fish found in their nets where the fish can escape from the nets?


Discussions of shaw next week l.jpg
Discussions of Shaw Next Week

FOCUS ON “PERFECT NET RULE”

  • Do our other cases support the rule?

  • Policy arguments for and against the rule.

  • When the Ohio Supreme Court rejects the rule, what does it leave in its place?


Liesner prevailing rule compare possible rules l.jpg
LIESNER PREVAILING RULE:COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

  • Actual Possession Likely

  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

  • Actual Possession Inevitable


Compare possible rules l.jpg
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

  • Actual Possession Likely

  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

  • Actual Possession Inevitable

    NEON: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?


Compare possible rules27 l.jpg
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

  • Actual Possession Likely

  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable

  • Actual Possession Inevitable

    NEON: DQ17: Policies Opposing Choice of #2?


ad