MUSIC: Gustav Mahler, Symphony #5 ( ) Vienna Philharmonic (1988) Leonard Bernstein: Conductor Which of These Things Is Not Like the Others (and Why)? Starting With: Which of These Things Is Not Like the Others (and Why)? LION FISH BULL FOX

LAWYERING EXERCISE TO SET UP DEMSETZ READING FOR WED/THU Which of These Things Is Not Like the Others (and Why)? LION FISH BULL FOX

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Standard Exam Task: Apply Authorities Studied to New Hypothetical or “Fact Pattern” Assmt #1 : Structured Sequence of Arguments Assmt #1 : Structured Sequence of Arguments – Specific arguments for each party from (1A) Facts of Shaw (1B) Specific Language from Shaw (1C) Policy of Rewarding Useful Labor

GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Standard Exam Task: Apply Authorities Studied to New Hypothetical or “Fact Pattern” Assmt #1 : Structured Sequence of Arguments Assmt #1 : Structured Sequence of Arguments – Three sets of specific arguments for each party – Not everything you could say about the hypo – But together, good basis for an exam answer

Two Important Skills to Practice GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Two Important Skills to Practice 1.Isolation: Focusing on One Narrow Topic at a Time 2.Dialogue: Finding Best Arguments for Each Party

ISOLATION: Focusing on One Narrow Topic at a Time Common Idea in Many Contexts Exercise or Massage Muscle Groups Football Film/Replays Individual Players Cooking Specific Ingredients

Two Important Skills to Practice GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Two Important Skills to Practice 1.ISOLATION: Focus on One Narrow Topic at a Time – Read Instructions Carefully & Just Do Your Topic: OR (1A) Facts of Shaw - OR - OR- (1B) Specific Language from Shaw -OR- (1C) Labor Policy – For Examples, Look at Shack Qs/Comments/Models – Doing more than you’re asked earns penalties not extra credit Cf. Responding to Judges in Oral Argument Cf. Coverage in Associate Assignments at Law Firm Cf. Limited Scope Short Exam Q

Two Important Skills to Practice GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Two Important Skills to Practice 2.DIALOGUE: Finding Best Arguments for Each Party – Built into Structure of Assignment #1 – Until the Highest Court in a Jurisdiction Decides an Open Q No “Right” Answer No “Right” Answer Just Best Available Arguments Just Best Available Arguments – Good Exam Answers Reflect This & Often Sound Like Schizophrenic Monologues

DIALOGUE: Finding Best Arguments for Each Party Legal Smeagols

Some General Points GROUP ASSIGNMENT #1 Some General Points 1.Carefully Follow Formatting & Substantive Directions 2.Special Problems of Tie-Breaker Qs 3.Working Together – Take Advantage of Multiple Perspectives – Keep Each Other on Track – Be Cooperative QUESTIONS?

LOGISTICS: CLASS #10 (Graded Briefs) OXYGEN: Mullett Brief due Sun 4pm – Look at IM #1: Instructions for all Written Work Instructions for Written Briefs – me if Qs RADIUM: – I’ve Started Grading Shaw Briefs (Goal = Wed 9/17) Status of Grading Posted on Course Page – Meanwhile Compare to Sample Brief (posted Tuesday) Can take Qs to Dean’s Fellows

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.27: Radium Next Class: sunken boat Should the result in Shaw be the same if the fishermen used a sunken boat instead of a net to trap the fish? Assume the boat retains the same percentage of fish that enter it as the net in Shaw. (E.g., <4% of fish that enter escape both nets & boat)

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.27: Radium NOTE: If Q = “Should the result be the same if we change one fact?” Really asking: “Why might result be different if we change the fact?” So: Why might it make a difference that people use a sunken boat rather than a net to catch fish (if both equally effective)?

“E-Participation” STATE v. SHAW DQ1.28: Radium “E-Participation” §B: Catrikilis, Sanseverino, Teijelo §D: Bolanos, Coleman, Furmanski to me today by 7:00 pm: A clear statement of the Rule you derived for DQ1.28 (Not your defense of the Rule) Use name, not pseudonym No need for any particular formatting We’ll go over next class

Apply Pierson & Liesner : to Perfect Net Rule & to Specific Shaw Facts DQ Apply Pierson & Liesner : to Perfect Net Rule & to Specific Shaw Facts Uranium

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Language from Pierson State would begin by arguing that Pierson says that “nets and toils [= traps]” create property in animals for those that use “such means” to catch animals. In reply, defendants would point to the specific language of the relevant passage in the majority opinion (see next slide).

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Pierson Language re Traps: render escape impossible “[E]ncompassing and securing such animals with nets and toils, or otherwise intercepting them in such a manner as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and render escape impossible, may justly be deemed to give possession of them to those persons who, by their industry and labor, have used such means of apprehending them.”

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Language from Pierson Passage about traps seems to require that they “render escape impossible,” supporting Perfect Net Rule. Ways Around?

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Language from Pierson: Ways around “render escape impossible”? Distinguish traps for individual animals from traps for groups of animals (like fish nets).

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Language from Pierson: Ways around “render escape impossible”? Dicta (traps not part of original case) and inconsistent with explicit concerns with certainty and labor (see below). Might just refer to “otherwise intercepting” and not to “nets and toils”

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Pierson Language re Traps (Note Commas):, “[E]ncompassing and securing such animals with nets and toils,, or otherwise intercepting them in such a manner as to deprive them of their natural liberty,, and render escape impossible, may justly be deemed to give possession of them to those persons who, by their industry and labor, have used such means of apprehending them.”

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Pierson Language re Mortal Wounding “[M]ortal wounding … by one not abandoning his pursuit, may … be deemed possession of [the animal]; since, thereby, the pursuer [i] manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use, [ii] has deprived him of his natural liberty, and [iii] brought him within his certain control.

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Language from Pierson: Property where claimant… [i] manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use, Big constructed nets at issue surely do this [ii] has deprived him of his natural liberty, and Can argue about this; probably true for most fish so long as they’re in the nets [iii] brought him within his certain control. Not true of any one fish; true of fish as a group

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Policies from Pierson: Rewarding Labor?

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Policies from Pierson: Rewarding Labor Point of net is to catch fish which have value to society. Net serves this purpose & is valuable even if not perfect Net that retains most of the fish it catches should thus be rewarded If net needs to be perfect to be protected against theft, industry might well shut down.

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Policies from Pierson: Certainty?

DQ1.23 Apply Pierson Majority to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Policies from Pierson: Certainty Perfect Net Rule (like too-absolute versions of rules in Liesner) creates uncertainty b/c too difficult for net-owners to meet test: Virtually impossible to create escape-proof net Even if net initially is escape-proof, wear-and-tear would quickly change this Difficult to show test met, and becomes harder as time goes on

DQ1.24 Apply Pierson Dissent to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Arguments from Pierson Dissent? Meet Language (p.6): i) Pursuer w/in reach or reasonable prospect of taking + ii) Intent to convert to own use Other Arguments?

DQ1.24 Apply Pierson Dissent to Shaw Facts & Perfect Net Rule (Uranium) Arguments from Pierson Dissent Would seem to meet language (p.6): i) Pursuer w/in reach or reasonable prospect of taking + ii) Intent to convert to own use Even imperfect net is more control/certainty than most forms of “hot pursuit” so dissent would likely say it is enough to create property rights. If you look to customs of fisherman, likely to find that fish in nets are considered property of net- owners. (per Gomez §D)

DQ1.24: Ways to Use Arguments from Dissents: If Majority not Binding on Court in Question, then Dissent can be Persuasive Authority (“We find the dissent’s position more persuasive because …”) Note that Pierson Dissent position seems inconsistent with rules stated in Liesner and Shaw as well, which weakens its overall persuasiveness.

DQ1.24: Ways to Use Arguments from Dissents : (Where Majority Opinion is Binding): Can Help Show Meaning of Majority Opinion: “The majority must have rejected the dissent’s argument that hunter’s customs should be consulted.”) Can Show General Relevance of a Policy Argument: “Judges may be concerned about the effects of their holdings on people’s behavior. See Pierson Dissent (suggesting Majority’s rule will deter useful hunting).”

DQ1.24: Ways to Use Arguments from Dissents: QUESTIONS?

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.25: Uranium Applying Liesner Tests to Shaw Facts Leave other Formulations to You & DFs

STATE v. SHAW Context 1902: I’ll include some slides in posted version

STATE v. SHAW Context: 1902 International China's Empress Tzu-hsi forbids binding of woman's feet Cuba gains independence from Spain Edward VII (60) becomes King of England (Victoria had reigned 63+ years before her death in 1901) Boer War Ends; Britain annexes Transvaal United States: Teddy Roosevelt: 1st Am. President to ride in an automobile US buys Virgin Islands from Denmark & right to build Panama Canal from French Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Civil War veteran & Justice on Mass. Supr. Ct.) becomes Associate Justice on US Supreme Court

STATE v. SHAW Context: 1902 Deaths Thomas Nast (cartoonist); Cecil Rhodes (explorer); Elizabeth Cady Stanton (feminist); Emile Zola (novelist) Births Charles Lindbergh (Aviator) & Ansel Adams (Photographer) Meyer Lansky & Carlo Gambino (Both Organized Crime) Richard Daley (Chi. Mayor 1968) & Thomas Dewey (ran for pres. 1948) & Strom Thurmond (ran for pres. 1948, d. 2003) Richard Rodgers, Guy Lombardo, John Steinbeck & Langston Hughes John Houseman (Paper Chase) & Margaret Hamilton (Wicked Witch) Ray Kroc (McDonald’s) & Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini (Iran)

STATE v. SHAW Context: 1902 Introduced: American Automobile Assn 1 st Automat Restaurant in Philadelphia "Bill Bailey Won't You Please Come Home" "The Entertainer" JC Penney 1 st Store (in Wyoming) London School of Economics Marlboro 1 st Movie Theater Neon Lamps Phi Alpha Delta

STATE v. SHAW Context: 1902 Introduced: "Pomp and Circumstance" Radium isolated by Marie & Pierre Curie Rhodes Scholarships Rose Bowl (1st College Bowl Game; Michigan 49, Stanford 0  ) Smith & Wesson.38 Caliber Special; Texaco The Thinker by Rodin Tinker, Evers, and Chance (Chicago Cubs Infielders) US Census Bureau Window Envelopes