Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules)

MUSIC: Gustav Holst, The Planets (1914-16) London Philharmonia Orchestra (1996)conductOR: Leonard Slatkin

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) First-in-Time: Likely Winners & Losers CAPTURING ANIMALS?

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) First-in-Time: Likely Winners & Losers PARKING FOR LAW SCHOOL (among holders of same type of permit)

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Alternative Approaches to First-in-Time: CAPTURING ANIMALS?

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Alternative Approaches to First-in-Time: CAPTURING ANIMALS? DQ8: What rule would you want if you were trying to preserve the fox population because foxes are commercially valuable?

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Alternative Approaches to First-in-Time: CAPTURING ANIMALS? DQ8: What rule would you want if you were trying to preserve the fox population because foxes are commercially valuable? We’ll Return to This Q with Demsetz Reading

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Alternative Approaches to First-in-Time: PARKING FOR LAW SCHOOL (among holders of same type of permit)

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems • Relevant Considerations Include: • Administrative Costs (Simowitz point) • Likely Winners & Losers • Effects on Participants’ Behavior

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems Pros & Cons of First-in-Time Rules: • Likely Benefits • Often Reasonable Degree of Certainty • Ease of Administration • Possible Problems • Can Seem Arbitrary • May Reward Undesirable Attributes

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules) Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems We’ll Return to This Type of Choice in Unit Two

What to Take Away From Pierson v. Post: Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases • Some primarily to introduce you to system • Some will be tools used regularly in course • Anything you “need to know”, we’ll come back to repeatedly

What to Take Away From Pierson v. Post: Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases • Context • History of Dispute & Court Proceedings • Prior Legal Authority • Customs & Other Social Institutions • Historical Moment • Language • Social Policies • Underlying Assumptions

What to Take Away From Pierson v. Post: Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases • Context • Language • Difficulty Discerning Precise Holding • Rationales • Social Policies • Underlying Assumptions

What to Take Away From Pierson v. Post: Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases • Context • Language • Social Policies • Reward Useful Labor • Get Certainty (In Tension w Flexibility) • Achieve Economic Benefits • Underlying Assumptions

What to Take Away From Pierson v. Post: Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases • Context • Language • Social Policies • Underlying Assumptions • Irrelevance of Bad Intent • Use of Some Form of First-in-Time

LOGISTICS: TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 4 • After class today, I’ll post Info Memo #2 & Update Syllabus & Assignment Sheet to Reflect • Radiums: Shaw Brief Due Thursday @9pm • Look in IM#2 for: • Formatting Instructions & Common Writing Problems • Model for Liesner Brief • I’ll take Qs tomorrow in class • I’ll Post Instructions for Group Written Assignment #1 Next Week & Take Qs in Class

Transition: Pierson  Liesner • Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object (Wild Animal) Changes from Unowned to Someone’s Property

Transition: Pierson  Liesner • Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object (Wild Animal) Changes from Unowned to Someone’s Property • Fights Between 1st & 2d Hunter: • If Animal Unowned, no Q that 2d Hunter Wins • Issue: Had 1st Hunter Done Enough to Get Property Rights Before 2d Hunter Intervened

Transition: Pierson  Liesner • Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Animal Changes from Unowned to Someone’s Property • Fights Between 1st & 2d Hunter: • Legal Rules Here Temporal Not Comparative • Issue: Had 1st Hunter Done Enough to Get Property Rights Before 2d Hunter Intervened • Not asking if 2d hunter did more or better labor than 1st

Transition: Pierson  Liesner • Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Animal Changes from Unowned to Someone’s Property • Pierson Suggests Two Ways Besides Actual Physical Possession to get Property rights in Wild Animals: • MORTAL WOUNDING (Liesner) • NETS & TRAPS (Shaw)

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: Deaths • Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (Civil War Hero) • John Muir (Naturalist) • Jacob Riis (Journalist/Author) • 19th Century Industrialists • CW Post (Grape Nuts & Other Cereals) • George Westinghouse (Railroad Brake and Electronics) • FrederikWeyerhauser (Timber & Paper)

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: Births • Alec Guiness • Bert Parks • Joe Louis • Joe DiMaggio • Ralph Ellison • Howard K. Smith

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: Introduced in U.S. • term “Birth Control” (coined by Margaret Sanger) • First Blood Transfusion • Doublemint chewing gum • Elastic Brassiere • Federal Trade Commission • Co. that will become Greyhound Bus • Mother’s Day (by Congr. Resolution)

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: Introduced in U.S. • New Republic Magazine • Panama Canal • Pygmalion by GB Shaw • Rookie Pitcher: Babe Ruth • Tarzan of the Apes • Teletype Machine • Traffic Lights using red-green signals

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: World War I June 28: Archduke Francis-Ferdinand Assassinated in Sarajevo: “The Shot Heard Round the World”

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: World War I Sept. 5: 1st Battle of the Marne Begins • NE of Paris, French 6th Army Attacks Germans  Allied Victory

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: World War I Sept. 5: 1st Battle of the Marne Begins • NE of Paris, French 6th Army Attacks Germans  Allied Victory • Two Million Soldiers Participate

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: World War I Sept. 5: 1st Battle of the Marne Begins • NE of Paris, French 6th Army Attacks Germans  Allied Victory • Two Million Soldiers Participate • 500,000 Killed or Wounded

Liesner v. Wanie: Context 1914: World War I Sept. 5: 1st Battle of the Marne Begins • NE of Paris, French 6th Army Attacks Germans  Allied Victory • Two Million Soldiers Participate • 500,000 Killed or Wounded Dec. 24-25: Christmas Truce

Liesner DQ17-18: Radium PLAYING WITH RULES Setting up DQ17-18 for Next Class Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup

Liesner DQ17-18: Radium PLAYING WITH RULES Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup • Line-Drawing: How many is “too many”? • Vary with size of kitchen? • Vary with amount of soup you’re preparing?

Liesner DQ17-18: Radium PLAYING WITH RULES Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup • Definitions: Who counts as a “Cook”? • Anyone helping with preparation? • Anyone with significant training/experience? • Anyone making decisions about ingredients or technique?

Liesner DQ17-18: Radium PLAYING WITH RULES Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup • Scope of Rule: “Soup” and What Else? • Any dish? • Any dish requiring careful balancing of flavors? • Any dish requiring particular skill?

Liesner DQ17-18: Radium PLAYING WITH RULES: WHICH RULE TO USE? Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup v. Many Hands Make Light Work

Liesner Brief: Uranium STATEMENT OF THE CASE: • Who is Suing Whom?

Liesner Brief: Uranium STATEMENT OF THE CASE: • Liesner and another, who claim to have shot and mortally wounded a wolf sued Wanie, who subsequently shot and took the wolf … • Wanie disputes on appeal whether the plaintiffs mortally wounded the wolf, so can’t treat it as given. • SEEKING WHAT RELIEF?

Liesner Brief: Uranium STATEMENT OF THE CASE: • Liesner and another, who claim to have shot and mortally wounded a wolf sued Wanie, who subsequently shot and took the wolf, to recover the body of the wolf … • This is what plaintiffs initially requested; issue of damages raised later • ON WHAT LEGAL THEORY?

Liesner Brief: Uranium STATEMENT OF THE CASE: ON WHAT LEGAL THEORY? (UNSTATED) • Might be “Trespass on the Case” (following Pierson) or “Trespass” (if Wisconsin views shot as direct) • Might be “Replevin” = Common law action for return of goods improperly taken

Liesner Brief: Uranium PROCEDURAL POSTURE: • Trial court directed verdict for plaintiff and awarded damages. Defendant appealed. • Don’t need to mention plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict; that step is implicit in court’s action • Don’t need to mention defendant’s motion for directed verdict; doesn’t affect reasoning or outcome

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner • Cases are complex tools for lawyers. • Applying the language and reasoning of case to a new situation is a way to learn some of the things you can do with the tool.

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner • Standard Law School practice to apply cases to hypothetical situations • Applying one case to the facts of another is like using a hypothetical where the class already is familiar with the relevant facts • Useful to remember that this exercise primarily is designed to help you understand Pierson (rather than Liesner)

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner For purposes of this exercise, let’s use FACTS as found by TRIAL COURT: • Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued • Escape Improbable, if not impossible • D then shot, killed & took animal

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner FACTS (as found by TRIAL COURT) • Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued • Escape Improbable, if not impossible • D then shot, killed & took animal APPLY LANGUAGE FROM PIERSON

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner FACTS (as found by TRIAL COURT) • Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued • Escape Improbable, if not impossible • D then shot, killed & took animal APPLY POLICIES FROM PIERSON Reward Effective Labor?

Liesner DQ14: Radium Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner FACTS (as found by TRIAL COURT) • Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued • Escape Improbable, if not impossible • D then shot, killed & took animal APPLY POLICIES FROM PIERSON Achieve Certainty?

Liesner DQ15: Uranium DIRECTED VERDICT • Trial Court Rules That Insufficient Evidence to Meet Relevant Legal Standard Was Presented to the Jury

Liesner DQ15: Uranium DIRECTED VERDICT • Trial Court Rules That Insufficient Evidence to Meet Relevant Legal Standard Was Presented to the Jury • Two Possible Grounds for Appeal • Trial Court Applied Wrong Legal Standard • Evidence Was Sufficient to Meet Legal Standard

Liesner DQ15: Uranium DIRECTED VERDICT • Trial Court Rules That Insufficient Evidence to Meet Relevant Legal Standard Was Presented to the Jury • Last Time: D Conceded Relevant Legal Standards, So Must Be Claiming That He Presented Evidence Sufficient to Raise Jury Q

Liesner DQ15: Uranium DIRECTED VERDICT • Liesneris Unusual Case: • Directed Verdict for Plaintiff • Trial Record appears to contain factual disputes • Trial Court must have believed that undisputed evidence proved P’s case (i.e., D presented insufficient evidence to contradict undisputed evidence supporting plaintiff)

Pierson v. Post: DQs10-11 (Types of Rules)