ian whitcomb titanic music as heard on the fateful voyage
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27

Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 329 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 'Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage' - 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
Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL

RECORD

phosphorus dq19 wanie
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
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
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
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
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
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
Liesner v. Wanie

TRIAL RECORD:

Questions?

1902 1908 1914
1902  1908  1914

Brief Musical Interlude

calcium

Calcium:

Shaw Brief

calcium shaw brief
Calcium:Shaw Brief

STATEMENT OF THE CASE?

calcium shaw brief13
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
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
Calcium:Shaw Brief

PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

calcium shaw brief16
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
Calcium:Shaw Brief

FACTS

We’ll do next week!

calcium shaw brief18
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

calcium shaw brief19
Calcium:Shaw Brief

ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?

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

calcium shaw brief20
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
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
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
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
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
LIESNER PREVAILING RULE:COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
  • Actual Possession Likely
  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
  • Actual Possession Inevitable
compare possible rules
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
  • Actual Possession Likely
  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
  • Actual Possession Inevitable

NEON: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?

compare possible rules27
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
  • Actual Possession Likely
  • Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
  • Actual Possession Inevitable

NEON: DQ17: Policies Opposing Choice of #2?

ad