DQ10-11: First-in-Time Type of Rule. –For Determining Property Rights in Unowned Property More Than One Possible First-in-Time Rule

DQ10-11: First-in-Time Type of Rule. –For Determining Property Rights in Unowned Property –Different From, e.g., Most Deserving Gets Lottery (Winner Randomly Selected Auction (Highest Bidder Gets) More Than One Possible First-in-Time Rule

DQ10-11: First-in-Time Type of Rule More Than One Possible First-in-Time Rule –Pierson opinions agree on First-in-Time –Disagree on what has to be done first: 1 st Hot Pursuit v. 1 st Something More

DQ10-11: First-in-Time Type of Rule More Than One Possible First-in-Time Rule –Pierson opinions agree on First-in-Time –Disagree on what has to be done first –Possible Options After Majority Opinion: First Physical Possession First Wound First Mortal Wound

DQ10-11: First-in-Time: Likely Winners & Losers CAPTURING ANIMALS?

DQ10-11: First-in-Time: Likely Winners & Losers PARKING AT LAW SCHOOL?

DQ10-11: First-in-Time: Alternatives CAPTURING ANIMALS?

DQ10-11: First-in-Time: Alternatives PARKING AT LAW SCHOOL?

Brief Return to DQ8 What rule would you want if you were trying to preserve the fox population because foxes are commercially valuable?

Brief Return to 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 question with Demsetz article next week.

Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems Relevant Considerations: –Administrative Costs –Likely Winners & Losers –Effects on Participants’ Behavior

Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems Pros & Cons of First-in-Time Rules: Likely Benefits –Often Reasonable Degree of Certainty –Ease of Administration

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

Choosing Among Property Allocation Systems We’ll Return to This Issue in Unit II

WHAT TO TAKE FROM PIERSON 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 come back to repeatedly

WHAT TO TAKE FROM PIERSON Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases Context Language Social Policies Underlying Assumptions

WHAT TO TAKE FROM PIERSON 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 FROM PIERSON Intro to Info Found in/Relevant to Cases Context Language –Difficulty Discerning Precise Holding –Rationales Social Policies Underlying Assumptions

WHAT TO TAKE FROM PIERSON 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 FROM PIERSON 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

ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 st Written Briefing Assignment Due Friday (Shaw) Follow Directions Carefully LUNCH TOMORROW 12:05 on Bricks: Caballero; Collett; Darville; Goldstein; Kapai; Rosenberg; Stone

GET A NON-ELECTRONIC LANDLINE PHONE

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

Transition: Pierson  Liesner Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property Fights Between 1 st & 2d Hunter: –If Object Unowned, no Q that 2d Hunter Wins –Issue: Had 1 st Hunter Done Enough to Get Property Rights Before Intervention

Transition: Pierson  Liesner Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property Fights Between 1 st & 2d Hunter: –If Object Unowned, no Q that 2d Hunter Wins –Issue: Had 1 st Hunter Done Enough to Get Property Rts Before Intervention Legal Rules Here Temporal Not Comparative

Transition: Pierson  Liesner Pierson Suggests Two Ways Besides Actual Physical Possession to get Property rights in Wild Animals :

Transition: Pierson  Liesner Pierson Suggests Two Ways Besides Actual Physical Possession to get Property Rights in Wild Animals : 1.MORTAL WOUNDING (Liesner) 2.NETS & TRAPS (Shaw)

LIESNER CONTEXT: 1914

1914: DEATHS Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (Civil War Hero) John Muir (Naturalist) Jacob Riis (Journalist/Author) 19 th Century Industrialists –CW Post (Grape Nuts & Other Cereals) –George Westinghouse (Railroad Brake and Electronics) –Frederik Weyerhauser (Timber & Paper)

1914: BIRTHS Alec Guiness Bert Parks Joe Louis Joe DiMaggio Ralph Ellison Howard K. Smith

1914: Introduced in US: 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)

1914: Introduced in US: 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

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

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

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

1914: World War I: Dec : Christmas Truce

1914: World War I: June 28: Archduke Francis-Ferdinand Assassinated in Sarajevo: The Shot Heard Round the World

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

Liesner Brief: HELIUM STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Two hunters (Liesner and another) who mortally wounded a wolf sued a third hunter (Wanie) who subsequently shot and took the wolf … SEEKING WHAT RELIEF?

Liesner Brief: HELIUM STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Two hunters (Liesner and another) who claim to have shot and mortally wounded a wolf sued a third hunter (Wanie) who subsequently shot and took the wolf … SEEKING WHAT RELIEF? “to recover the body of the wolf” initially; (damages raised later in case)

Liesner Brief: HELIUM STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Two hunters (Liesner and another) who claim to have shot and mortally wounded a wolf sued a third hunter (Wanie) who subsequently shot and took the wolf seeking to recover the body of the wolf. ON WHAT LEGAL THEORY? (UNSTATED)

Liesner Brief: HELIUM ON WHAT LEGAL THEORY? (UNSTATED) might be “Trespass” or “Trespass on the Case” might be “Replevin” = Common law action for return of goods improperly taken

Liesner Brief: HELIUM PROCEDURAL POSTURE?

Liesner Brief: HELIUM PROCEDURAL POSTURE? Trial court directed verdict for plaintiff and awarded damages. Defendant appealed.

Liesner Brief: HELIUM FACTS (from TRIAL COURT) 1.Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued 2.Escape Improbable, if not impossible 3.D then shot & killed, took animal

KRYPTON DQ13: Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner ASSUME TRIAL COURT FACTS CORRECT: 1.Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued 2.Escape Improbable, if not impossible 3.D then shot & killed, took animal WHY DO THIS?

Krypton DQ13: Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner ASSUME TRIAL COURT FACTS CORRECT: 1.Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued 2.Escape Improbable, if not impossible 3.D then shot & killed, took animal APPLY LANGUAGE FROM PIERSON

Krypton DQ13: Application of Pierson to Facts of Liesner ASSUME TRIAL COURT FACTS CORRECT: 1.Ps mortally wounded animal, pursued 2.Escape Improbable, if not impossible 3.D then shot & killed, took animal APPLY POLICIES FROM PIERSON: Reward Effective Labor

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: Motions to end the case. (“Dispose of” case  “Dispositive”)

DIRECTED VERDICT Trial Court Rules That Insufficient Evidence to Meet Relevant Legal Standard Was Presented to the Jury

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

DIRECTED VERDICT: LIESNER Last Time: D Conceded Relevant Legal Standards, So Must Be Claiming That Evidence Sufficient to Raise Jury Q

DIRECTED VERDICT: LIESNER 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