ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #11 Wednesday, September 16, 2015

MUSIC (to accompany demsetz): The Beatles MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR (1967) Lunch Today Meet on 11:55 am Chinea * Kurtz * Nussbaum Prather * Rashid * Segal Weissman Lunch Tomorrow Meet on 12:25 pm Arnst * Bertschausen * Klotz Lemire * Narciso * Reyes Starkey

RING STORY (10/78-1/84)

Introduction to Escape Generally: Difficult for an Owner to Lose Property Rights Accidentally Return of the Ring We Don’t Presume Abandonment from Carelessness (Laptops in Library) As You’ll See in Property, Hard to Achieve Adverse Possession (Generally Original Owner Must Completely Ignore & Avoid Parcel for 7+ Years)

Introduction to Escape Unit IB: When Does Owner of Escaped Wild Animal Lose Property Rights? – Why Different from Ring? – What Facts are Relevant?

Introduction to Escape : Recurring Terminology Original Owner (OO) Original Owner (OO) (can’t just say “owner” b/c unclear who owns animal after escape) Finder (F) Finder (F) lose retain acquire Does OO lose or retain property rights in the escaped animal? (v. Unit IA: Did pursuer acquire property rights to animal)

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.41: URANIUM Why should an OO ever lose property rights in an escaped wild animal? Why might we treat an escaped animal differently from a ring? Let’s Get Some Ideas on the Table

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.41: URANIUM Can you think of a circumstance where it would be unfair to return an escaped animal to original owner? Focus on right & wrong here & not legal doctrine.

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Language in Cases? – Although clearly nothing directly targeting – Until something on point, look where you can – [I’ll add slide with examples]

Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42 Sample Arguments from Language in Prior Case re Ownership of Escaped Animals Pierson: Mortal wounding by one not abandoning pursuit  Property (suggests property rights can be lost at some point by not following up/pursuing) Pierson/Liesner: Depriving animal of natural liberty  Property (suggests property rights can be lost if animal returns to natural liberty). Shaw: Once animals are confined, need to maintain reasonable precautions against escape (suggests that if you take reasonable precautions, might retain ownership even if animal escapes).

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Rewarding Useful Labor/Investment? What Labor/Investment by OO Might We Want to Reward/Protect? What Labor/Investment by F Might We Want to Reward/Protect?

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Rewarding Useful Labor/Investment? Labor of OO? – Acquisition: Investment in purchase or capture – While Owned: In confining, maintaining, training – After Escape: In pursuit Labor of F? – In capturing – In confining, maintaining, training

URANIUM Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Arguments from Prior Authority re Ownership of Escaped Animals From Policies We’ve Discussed? – Providing Certainty?

Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Providing Certainty? Certainty to OO? – No “Perfect Cage Rule”: Don’t have to take ridiculous steps to keep from escaping? – Aware of What is Necessary to Retain O-Ship? Certainty to Decision-Maker: Rule is Easy to Apply? Certainty to Finder? (we’ll come back to)

Introduction to Escape : DQ 1.42: URANIUM Going Forward We’ll Look at What Our Four Escape Cases Really Seem to Care About (as Opposed to These Hypothetical Lists)

Introduction to Escape : Mullett & Manning All Three First Possession Cases (Pierson- Liesner-Shaw) Ask Similar Legal Qs The First Two Escape Cases Use Very Different Approaches: – Mullett: Applies English Common Law Rule to Escaped Sea Lion – Manning: Fact-Specific Result (Not Referencing English Common Law Rule) for Escaped Canary

Introduction to Escape : Mullett & Manning The First Two Escape Cases Use Very Different Approaches BUT They are the only two cases in the entire course where the animal isn’t killed.

Finishing Up STATE v. SHAW Brief (Continued )

Narrow Version of Holding (from Last Time) STATE v. SHAW Brief: Narrow Version of Holding (from Last Time) YES. The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because net-owners can have property rights in fish found in their nets even if some fish can escape from the nets.

OneBroader Version of Holding STATE v. SHAW Brief: One Broader Version of Holding bring the fish into their power and control, [ii] so maintain their control as to show that they do not intend to abandon the fish again to the world at large. YES. The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because net-owners have property rights in fish found in their nets if the nets [i] bring the fish into their power and control, and [ii] so maintain their control as to show that they do not intend to abandon the fish again to the world at large. QUESTIONS ON HOLDING OR LEGAL TESTS FOUND IN SHAW?

STATE v. SHAW Brief Rationales: Doctrinal Rationales from Authorities Cited on pp Provided in Sample Brief Policy Rationales (Hints from Language of Case): Court refers to Perfect Net Rule as “Unnecessarily Technical” (p.28). MEANS?

STATE v. SHAW Brief Rationales: Policy Rationales (Hints from Language of Case): Court refers to Perfect Net Rule as “Unnecessarily Technical” (p.28). Probably refers to difficulty of proof/certainty arguments. Court says possession of fish by net-owners “was so complete and certain” that Ds raised nets “with absolute assurance that they could get the fish that were in them.” (p.29) Significance?

STATE v. SHAW Brief Policy Rationales (Hints from Language of Case): Possession of fish by net-owners “was so complete and certain” that Ds raised nets “with absolute assurance that they could get the fish that were in them.” (p.27) Maybe refers to certainty of capturing fish (as a group) or of identifying owners Maybe goes to sufficiency of Net-owners’ labor OTHER DIFFERENT POLICY CONCERNS?

STATE v. SHAW Brief Rationales: Policy Rationales: Could discuss protecting important industry (subset of labor argument), but need to be clear that court doesn’t reference explicitly. Posted Brief contains fully articulated examples of each of the ideas mentioned here. Me if Qs

LOGISTICS: CLASS #11 THIS FRIDAY (9/18): Extendo-Class –Start with Intro to Manning & DQs (OXYGEN) –Then Try to Finish Demsetz (KRYPTON & RADIUM DQs) –Then Return if Time to Manning Brief & DQ (OXYGEN) Last FRIDAY Before Break (10/2) –Additional Extendo-Class b/c One Less Class Hour Before Break than Last Year –Need to Introduce Some Concepts You’ll Need for Readings During and Immediately After Break –If no Storms, I’ll Give You the Extra Time Back on Day of Your Grammar Quiz at End of October

LOGISTICS: CLASS #11 (Graded Briefs) OXYGEN: Mullett Brief due Sat 8pm –Look at Instructions for all Written Work and for Written Briefs (IM21-22). me if Qs. –Get/Confirm Pseudonyms Before End of Day Friday –Self-Quizzes on both Manning and Mullett Helpful. –Double-Check Formatting Instructions Before Finalizing RADIUM: –I’ve Started Grading Shaw Briefs (Goal = Thu 9/24) –Status of Grading Posted on Course Page –Meanwhile Can Compare to Posted Sample Brief & Can Take Remaining Qs to Dean’s Fellow.

LOGISTICS: CLASS #11 (Assignment #1) Assignment Logistics Submission due Mon 10pm Non-Coordinators’ Segments to be Sent to Coordinators by 10am (unless group agrees otherwise) Coordinators –Get Pseudonyms Before End of School Day Monday –Double-Check Formatting Instructions Before Finalizing If It Were Me, I’d Want … –1 st meeting no later than end of today –Deadline for circulating 1 st drafts no later than Fri. afternoon Purpose/Importance: Practice & Feedback re Key Skill (Applying Legal Authority to New Facts)

LOGISTICS: CLASS #11 (Assignment #1) Common Qs:Common Qs: –Use of Other Cases? –Use of Other Cases? (Only Sub-Assmt 1C and with Care) –Length? –Length? (Thorough yet Concise) –How Literal? –How Literal? (Very!! Cf. Reality TV Challenges) I’ll Take Other Questions … –by through Thursday Night –In Class on Friday –Not at All After Class Friday (So Double-Check Instructions Before That)

DQ : Krypton Applying State v. Shaw

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.26: Krypton “[T]he pursuer must … [i] bring them into his power and control, and [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” We’ll work with this test and leave other plausible rule & policy arguments from Shaw for you and DF Sessions

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.26: Krypton “[T]he pursuer must … [i] bring them into his power and control [i] bring them into his power and control, and [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Liesner (trial court facts): Mortal Wound + Vigorous Pursuit + Escape Improbable

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.26: Krypton “[T]he pursuer must … [i] bring them into his power and control, and [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Liesner (trial court facts): Mortal Wound + Vigorous Pursuit + Escape Improbable

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.26: Krypton “[T]he pursuer must … [i] bring them into his power and control [i] bring them into his power and control, and [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Pierson facts.

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.26: Krypton “[T]he pursuer must … [i] bring them into his power and control, and [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” [ii] so maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon them again to the world at large.” Apply to Pierson facts

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.27: Krypton 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: Krypton Marking/Notice of Claim to Others is an important recurring policy concern See Shaw test part 2: “ maintain his control as to show that he does not intend to abandon” See Pierson: Mortal wounding + pursuit OK because hunter “thereby manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal”

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.27: Krypton Nice Additional Policy Reason to Treat Sunken Boat Differently Net is easily visible (28-foot square & top 4 feet above water) Sunken boat may not be visible so may be safety hazard to lake traffic if not very well marked May not want to reward trap that is dangerous to humans

STATE v. SHAW DQ1.28: Krypton Can you frame a single rule that makes sense of the results in Pierson, Liesner, and Shaw? Why is this a useful exercise? Explain unreconciled cases In court or legal memo Ideally reconciles cases AND shows that your side wins