ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #4 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (Realio Trulio Wednesday)Realio Trulio.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Points Relied On Points and Critique Dean Ellen Suni Fall 2013 These materials are for teaching purposes only. The law is probably incorrect and is solely.
Advertisements

MUSIC: Beethoven Symphonies #1 (1800) & #3 (1805) Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of Europe Nikolaus Harmoncourt, Conductor (1991) LUNCH SCHEDULES FOR BOTH.
Chapter 4: Enforcing the Law 4 How Can Disputes Be Resolved Privately?
How to Brief a Case Hawkins v. McGee.
Evaluating Thinking Through Intellectual Standards
The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)
1 Agenda for 3rd Class Misc. –Nameplates out –Audio recordings –Model answers Finish up Service of Process Introduction to Motion to Dismiss Haddle History.
When might conforming to custom be a bad idea? (Includes…)
Ms. Sonty American Government September 10 th, 2014.
MUSIC: The Beatles MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR (1967) §B Lunch Wed Sep 10 Meet on 12:15pm Gil * McLaughlin Martinez * Morales Pope * Randolph * Rose.
Phil 160 Kant.
MUSIC: Beethoven Violin Sonatas #5 (1801) & #9 (1803) Recordings: Itzhak Perlman, Violin & Vladimir Ashkenazy, Piano ( )
From the Courtroom to the Classroom: Learning About Law © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved.
Do Now: Grab today’s Agenda (9:2). Read the story and sketch out the structure of the court system.
Ludwig van Beethoven Symphony #3 “Eroica” (1804) Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra Karl Bohm, Conductor Recorded 1972.
NOTICE OF CLAIM – HOW TO AVOID THE TRAP© LAW OFFICES OF MICKEY BEISMAN
ELEMENTS B/D: Prof. Fajer Please Select Seats Only in the First Four Rows MUSIC: Emile Giles, Piano Beethoven, Piano Sonatas 21, 23, 26 Composed: 1803,
Trial advocacy workshop
Ian Whitcomb, Titanic: Music as Heard on the Fateful Voyage.
Legal Analysis Issues and Holdings. Assignment 2—Due Date Prepare Issue and Holding for both Swenson and Dickerson—due Tuesday October 14 Read Arizona.
Music: Beethoven String Quartet opus 131 (1826) Vienna Philharmonic Leonard Bernstein, Conductor Recorded 1977.
How to write a case brief. Title Title and Citation The title of the case shows who is opposing whom. The name of the person who initiated legal action.
MUSIC: CLAUDE DEBUSSY Afternoon of a Faun (1894); Nocturnes (1900); The Sea (1905); Images D’Orchestre ( ) Boston Symphony Orchestra conductOR: CHARLES.
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #1 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 (Constructive Monday)
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #5 Friday, August 28, 2015.
MUSIC: SERGEI PROKOFIEV, PETER & THE WOLF (1936) PHILADELPHIA Orchestra (1977) conductOR: EUGENE ORMANDY NARRATOR: DAVID BOWIE.
Applying Legal Rule /Test 1.Look for best arguments for each party –Be Cognizant of Structure of Test –Use Care w Language –Utilize Definitions 2.If significant.
MUSIC: CLAUDE DEBUSSY, Afternoon of a Faun (1894); Nocturnes (1900); The Sea (1905) ORCHESTRE de la Suisse Romande (1988/1990) conductOR: ARMIN JORDAN.
Music: Uncle Bonsai A Lonely Grain Of Corn (1984) FYI: See Song Called Day Old Whale.
CASE BRIEF = RESUME Standardized Information Range of Successful Ways to Present Alter for Different Audiences Rarely the Whole Story.
HOW TO BRIEF A CASE The Structure of Case Briefs.
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #7 Wednesday, September 2, 2015.
NEON & HELIUM: Put Taber & Bartlett Briefs Face Down in Box on Front Table MUSIC: Ray Charles & Friends Genius Loves Company (Duets 2004) DOG = KATIE (15)
(Last Day of Ludwig) MUSIC: Beethoven (Last Day of Ludwig) Symphonies #4 (1807) & #7 (1813) Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of Europe Nikolaus Harmoncourt,
Music: Beethoven, Piano Sonata #23 (Appassionata) (1805) Performer: Emil Giles, Piano (1972) LUNCH TUESDAY 1. FOXHOVEN 2. GALLO 3. KINZER 4. MELIA 5. RAINES.
Music: The Beatles, Magical Mystery Tour (1967) (on one speaker  ) Written Briefs Due: HELIUM : Monday 9/15 (Mullett) CHLORINE : Wednesday 9/17 (Manning)
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #6 Monday, August 31, 2015.
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #11 Wednesday, September 16, 2015.
MUSIC: BEETHOVEN Symphony #5 ( ) (rec. 1975) Symphony #7 (1811) (rec. 1976) Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Carlos Kleiber, Conductor.
Transition: Pierson  Liesner Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property.
MuSIC: Holst, The Planets ( ) & Williams, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS/STAR WARS (1977) Los ANGELES PhilharmoniC Orchestra Conductor: ZUBEN MEHTA (1998) §B Seating.
ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #9 Wednesday, September 9, 2015 (#9 = 9/9)
Ludwig van Beethoven Piano Sonata #23 (1805) “Appassionata” Emil Giles, Piano (1972)
Beethoven Cello Sonata #3 ( ) Jacqueline du Pré, Cello Daniel Barenboim, Piano Edinburgh Festival (1970)
Gustav Holst, The Planets (1914) Recorded by Philharmonia Orchestra (1996) Monday 80 Minutes: –Finish Liesner –Start State v. Shaw –Krypton Written Shaw.
ACT Reading & ELA Preparation Color:________. Red Orange Green Blue.
CASE BRIEF = RESUME Standardized Information Range of Successful Ways to Present Alter for Different Audiences Rarely the Whole Story.
MUSIC: Beethoven Symphonies #6 (1808) & #8 (1814) Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of Europe Nikolaus Harmoncourt, Conductor (1991) See Whiteboard for Instructions.
ELEMENTS B1 & B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #1 Wednesday, August 17 & Thursday August 18.
ELEMENTS B1 & B2 POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D1 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS B1 & B2 POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS B1 & B POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D1 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS B1 & B POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS B1 & B POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D1 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D1 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D1 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
ALUMINUM: Written Swift Brief Due Wed
ELEMENTS B1 & B POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS D2 & D POWER POINT SLIDES
Preparing a Case Brief.
Balter; Granda; Hansen; Layug; Miller-Ciempela; Price; Wolfson
Courtroom to Classroom:
ELEMENTS B 2019 POWER POINT SLIDES
ELEMENTS B 2019 POWER POINT SLIDES Class #6: Friday August 23 National Ride the Wind Day National Sponge Cake Day.
ELEMENTS B 2019 POWER POINT SLIDES Class #4: Tuesday August 20 National Radio Day This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC.
Presentation transcript:

ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #4 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (Realio Trulio Wednesday)Realio Trulio

MUSIC: Beethoven Symphonies #6 (1808) & #8 (1814) Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of Europe Nikolaus Harmoncourt, Conductor (1991) LUNCH TODAY Meet on 11:55: Ferrer * Larey * McPherson Menda * Sacks * Zim LUNCH TOMORROW Meet on 12:25 Dambuleff * Fry * Marion Schiffer * Shaffer Stonebraker * Utset

ELEMENTS B Three Common 1L Issues Class #2: Confusion Class #3: Control Class #4: Competition v. Cooperation

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION Background Qs: How Many of You … ? (Show of Hands; Look Around)

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

I don’t have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you!!

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION I have to outrun you – Bad Model for Law School

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION I have to outrun you – Bad Model for Law School – 1L Grading LComm Rest of your classes

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION I have to outrun you v. Cooperation Benefits You – Diversity (Broadly Understood) Different experiences Different points of view Multiple Ears/Eyes

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION Cooperation Benefits You – Diversity (Broadly Understood)  – You Know More Collectively than Individually  – Good Group Work Tends to Lift Whole Group

COMPETITION v. COOPERATION Cooperation Benefits You Patience & Consideration – E.g., in event of illness, family emergency, laptop disaster – Remember, could have been you

LOGISTICS: CLASS #4 Thursday Dean’s Fellow Sessions – This 5:00 (p.m.!) in A110 Posted on Course Page: – Now: Panel Assignments – After Class Today: Check for Updated Assignment for Friday (Not Liesner) – After Class Friday: Extension of Materials and Assignment Sheet

CASE BRIEF: Issue Party Appealing Always Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. To Identify the Issue, Identify the Mistake.

CASE BRIEF: Issue Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently?

CASE BRIEF: Issue Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently? Substantive Component of Mistake: What Misunderstanding About the Legal Rule Caused the Lower Court to Make the Procedural Mistake?

Pierson v. Post: Issue End of 1 st paragraph: Pierson claimed that “the declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action.” *What did he think was insufficient about the claims Post made in the declaration?

Pierson v. Post: Issue SUBSTANTIVE MISTAKE: Claim that Post pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone doesn’t create property rights in the fox. Trespass on the Case = Indirect Interference with Property Rights. If Post did not have “Property Rights” in the fox, Pierson did not commit Trespass on the Case when he killed it.

Pierson v. Post: Issue *WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

Pierson v. Post: Issue WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? PROCEDURAL MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case [as a Matter of Law] for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted As I noted in slides for DQ1.01, might have been raised at the beginning of the case; we don’t know.

Pierson v. Post: Issue (Recap) PROCEDURAL COMPONENT OF MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case [as a Matter of Law] for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted In other words, even if everything stated in Declaration was true, Post was not entitled to any legal remedy (or “SO WHAT?”).

REPLYING TO DECLARATION/COMPLAINT: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (“So What?”) v. Answer (“Did Not!!”) Defendants often try versions of both, either concurrently re different claims or consecutively re the same claim.

Pierson v. Post: Issue For Elements Briefs, Combine Both Alleged Mistakes PROCEDURAL MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted + SUBSTANTIVE MISTAKE: Allegation that plaintiff pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone does not create property rights in the fox. [One gloriously awkward sentence.]

Pierson v. Post: Issue For Elements Briefs, Combine Both Alleged Mistakes Did the Lower Court Err by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

Pierson v. Post: Issue Examples of Simple Substantive Issue (Appropriate for Torts or Property) Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox? OR What Acts are Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

Pierson v. Post: Issue Simple Substantive Issue E.g., What Acts are Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox? Cf. p.3: “[W]hat acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild animals[?]” For Elements briefs, state issue as a yes/no question.

CASE BRIEF: Issue  Holding Simplest Version of Holding: Issue is a question. Answer question “yes” or “no.” Repeat issue in statement form (adjust for positive or negative).

Pierson v. Post: Issue Did the Lower Court Err by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

Pierson v. Post: Issue  Holding YES. The Lower Court Erred by Failing To Dismiss the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted Because Pursuit of a Fox Is Insufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox. Qs on Issue/Holding So Far?

CASE BRIEF: Issue/Holding SIDE NOTE: CASES FREQUENTLY HAVE TWO OR MORE ISSUES/HOLDINGS If so, your brief should separately list each issue followed by: – One or more versions of the holding deciding that issue – All rationales supporting that holding Most of the cases in our first two units (including Pierson) only have one issue.

CASE BRIEF: Issue/Holding IMPORTANT Q: HOW MUCH DETAIL DO YOU INCLUDE? Try to include factual detail that seems relevant to analysis/outcome. Can have different versions of issue and/or holding that incorporate more or less detail (narrower/broader). For Elements, start with a narrow version of the issue & holding, then try broader holdings DQ intended to help you start thinking about how to do this.

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Version of Substantive Holding (adding detail): To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(a) Significance of Facts (Recap) Why might it matter that the fox is found on a deserted beach? On land that is not private property, no superceding claim by landowner (ratione soli).

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Versions of Substantive Holding (Generalizing): To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Versions of Substantive Holding (Generalizing): To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. Note: Might also get fight between two hunters (as opposed to between hunter and landowner) IF: 1.Landowner permitted both hunters to hunt; OR 2.Landowner chooses not to claim the animal. 1 or 2 probably true in next case (Liesner)

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was in a well at the time it was killed. Why might that affect the result in the case? Assume well is also unowned.

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Suppose fox was inside a well when it was killed… Could treat as trap (“toil”), which case suggests equals possession if fox cannot escape (see p.4): Can get possession of animals when traps “deprive them of their natural liberty, and render escape impossible….” – Significance of this may depend on whether fox driven into well by Pierson or by Post. If fox mortally wounded by fall into well, might belong to whoever drove it into well. BUT Could still say that Post still did not have actual physical possession of the fox.

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was in a well when it was killed …. Contemporary accounts outside the legal record say this was what happened. Assuming these accounts are correct, why isn’t this discussed in the case?

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Assuming fox was inside a well when it was killed, why isn’t this discussed in the case? Probably not in declaration. Why might Post’s lawyer have failed to include this information?

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was inside a well when it was killed. Why wouldn’t lawyer include it in declaration? Maybe strategic decision. Maybe lawyer didn’t think it was important. Maybe lawyer didn’t know (asked wrong Qs)! Note Importance of Lawyer

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Given what you know about the case, anything wrong with this image of the well? Jack & Jill

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts This kind of well on a beach on Long Island would fill with salt water.

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts I always assumed Pierson shot fox at bottom of stereotypical (Jack-and-Jill) well, BUT … This kind of well on a beach on Long Island would fill with salt water. Detail in contemporary account says: – Fox went into a “shoal well” (shallow hole on beach that collects fresh water). – Pierson hit fox on the head with a broken fence rail (“broke its crown”?). ONE MORAL OF THE STORY: KEEP REREADING!!

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Note that NY SCt is ruling on the sufficiency of Post’s Declaration. It appears that the Declaration doesn’t mention a well or how Pierson killed the fox, so those “facts” are not part of the court’s analysis/decision. FYI: Bethany R. Berger, It's Not About the Fox: The Untold History of Pierson v. Post, 55 Duke L.J (2006)

CASE BRIEF: Narrower v. Broader Versions of Holdings Different ways to articulate what a court decided that contract or expand the scope/reach of the decision.

CASE BRIEF: Narrower v. Broader Versions of Holdings NARROWER Covers fewer situations Includes more facts More specific BROADER Covers more situations Includes fewer facts More general

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Narrower)  To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Broader)

FAILED RELATIONSHIPS FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Narrower v. Broader Versions of “Holdings” Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break- up that contract or expand the scope/reach of the lesson.

FAILED RELATIONSHIPS FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Narrower v. Broader Versions of “Holdings” Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break-up that contract or expand the scope/reach of the lesson. “I’ll never date a musician again!!”

FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Narrower Versions of “Holdings” contract Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break-up that contract the scope/reach of the lesson. “I’ll never date a musician again!!” Musician who is an Only Child? Keyboardist? Person in a Rock Band?

FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Broader Versions of “Holdings” expand Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break-up that expand the scope/reach of the lesson. “I’ll never date a musician again!!” Woman? Human Being? Sentient Creature?

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding To get property rights in [a fox] found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Narrower)  To get property rights in [an animal] found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Too Broad???)

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(b) Significance of Facts Why might it matter that the hunted animal is some other animal as opposed to a fox?

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(b) Significance of Facts Why might it matter that the hunted fox is wearing a steel wool hair piece & a t-shirt? THIS FOX LOVES DONALD TRUMP

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(b) Why might it matter that the hunted animal is some other animal as opposed to a fox? Might want different rule for: Pets/Domestic Animals Endangered Species Animals in School/Flock Very Valuable Animal/Food Animal Fox w Steel Wool Hair & Trump T-Shirt

Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding To get property rights in [a fox] found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Narrower)  To get property rights in [an animal ferae naturae] found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. (Broader, but clearly still supported by text)

Pierson v. Post Significance of Facts Assume (as is likely) that the jury found that the facts were as Post alleged. Relevance to this appeal?

Pierson v. Post Significance of Facts Assume (as is likely) that the jury found that the facts were as Post alleged. Relevance to this appeal? None. Claim on appeal is that even if all facts are as alleged, Post cannot win because his pursuit did not create property rights in fox.

Pierson v. Post: Holding Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in an animal ferae naturae found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.  To get property rights in an animal ferae naturae found on unowned land, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means … [specifics ???]

Pierson v. Post: Holding What Constitutes Possession of Wild Animal? Actual Physical Possession – This is established prior to the case and everyone treats it as given. – Because it is uncontested here, it is not part of the issue/holding.

Pierson v. Post: Holding What Constitutes Possession of Wild Animal? Actual Physical Possession (Uncontested) Majority Refers to Two Other Possible Ways to Get Possession: – Mortal Wounding – Traps & Nets

Pierson v. Post: Holding What Constitutes Possession of Wild Animal? Actual Physical Possession (Uncontested) Majority Refers to Two Other Possible Ways to Get Possession: – Mortal Wounding – Traps & Nets Note: Court discusses these two options although they were not part of the facts of the dispute it is resolving.

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.05 Holding v. Dicta Courts often comment about fact situations different from the cases before them. What are some of the pros and cons of judges discussing facts not before them?

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.05 Some pros and cons of judges discussing facts not before them: PRO: Provides instructions to lawyers in future cases PRO: Helps clarify reasoning & scope of opinion CON: Want limits on judicial power (killing fox  death penalty) CON: Judges’ decisions may be better-reasoned if made in the context of real facts with interested parties each presenting their strongest arguments. This list arguably supports common distinction between “holding” and “dicta.”

Pierson v. Post: DQ1.05 Holding v. Dicta Substantive Holding ? Pursuit alone is insufficient to create property rights in a wild animal. -OR- To create property rights in a wild animal, you need to physically possess it, mortally wound it, or catch it in a trap or net. How/when will you know for sure whether language in case is dicta or part of holding?