ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES

ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES
Class #30 Monday, November 13, 2017 Tuesday, November 14, 2017

New Instructions on CP for Next Class re:
MUSIC TO ACCOMPANY WHITE: Dave Brubeck Quartet, We’re All Together Again for the First Time (2005) featuring Take Five (1960) Read Carefully New Instructions on CP for Next Class re: 2014 XQ1B (1st Possession of Virtual Planet) 2012 XQ2 (Usefulness Of Escaping ACs for Human Gestures) New on Course Page Hammonds & White Sample Briefs Revised Info Memo #3 with Escape Toolbox Exam Prep Exercise based on GWA#2 Revised Info Memo #4 with Completed Custom Toolbox Write-Uo of DQ2.19 (Internet Brief)

White v. N.Y. Gas Co. CONTINUATION OF DQ.30, COURT’S ANALYSIS & DQ

Oil & Gas: “Escape”(recap)
Factual Setting of Hammonds & White Gas pool underneath multiple surface lots All usable gas extracted from pool Gas Co. (G) uses empty pool for storage: G has lawful access from some point on surface G wants to extract and reinsert at will G does not want to pay surface Os for right to store gas in the underground parts of their lots

Oil & Gas: “Escape” (recap)
Factual Settings: Hammonds v. White Gas Co. (G) uses empty pool for storage Hammonds = Dispute betw G & Surface O White = Different Problem Reinserted Gas Leaked into Adjacent Gas Pool Person with Interest in Adjacent Pool Wants to Pump Out Reinserted Gas Through That Pool

Labor by OO, No Abandonment, Plus: Marking/F’s Knowledge:
White v. N.Y. Gas Co.: DQ2.30 Arguments that G wins under ACs? (Recap +) Labor by OO, No Abandonment, Plus: Marking/F’s Knowledge: Nature of gas shows industry expert that not local Highly unlikely OD well starts producing again w/o leak Court’s zoo elephant in Pittsburgh (p.103) a little Q’able Need to be expert to tell NE from SW gas Maybe more like: Fished-out lake suddenly has fish again Return to NL: Under Mullett : Not “Natural Habitat” (Doesn’t Have to Be) Can “behave” as it would in Nat’l Habitat Not free from artificial restraint (valve) BUT can escape into 2d pool Like Kesler: relatively short time & distance; quick “pursuit”

White v. N.Y. Gas Co.: DQ2.30 (D2 Uranium) Arguments that G wins even under ACs?
Domestication Could Easily Have Rule That Once “Captured”, No Longer Wild Animal, so Stronger Rights Two Concerns re Analogy to “Domestication” Natural Gas Escapes out of Human Control [into Air!] if Not Confined Properly, so Maybe More Like Wild Animal in Cage In White Situation (Unlike Hammonds), G No Longer Fully Controls Gas

White v. N.Y. Gas Co. : Logic of Case
Finding #1: Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Crawford County, Pennsylvania. Defendant New York State Natural Gas Corporation … is a New York corporation and doing business in Pennsylvania. Defendant Tennessee Gas Transmission Company … is a Delaware corporation and doing business in Pennsylvania. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Diversity Jurisdiction in Fed’l Court

White v. N.Y. Gas Co. : Logic of Case & DQ2.31
Diversity Case in Federal Court Court must apply Pennsylvania Law (Erie) Earlier Penn. Trial Court case followed Hammonds Court: Penn. SCt would not follow Hammonds Penn doesn’t always use animals analogy for oil & gas Hammonds rule discourages reinsertion Strong public policy favoring reinsertion (note finding re necessary for winter heating in Northeastern US) DQ2.31: Statutes cited on top of p.106: Significance?

White v. N.Y. Gas Co. : Logic of case & DQ2.31
Court: Penn. SCt would not follow Hammonds Penn doesn’t always use animals analogy for oil & gas Hammonds rule discourages reinsertion Strong public policy favoring reinsertion DQ2.31: Penn. Statutes = Evidence of public policy Eminent Domain power available to get storage space. Like Oklahoma Statute cited in n.2 p.102 What does use of EmDom mean in this context? Allowed to store even near coal mines. See Mahon v. Penn. Coal Co. (in Property) State leases out stsate-owned land for storage.

White v. N.Y. Gas Co. DQ2.32 Under the reasoning of White, will surface owners (Os) have a trespass action against those who reinsert gas (Gs)? They should; gas remains property of Gs. Penn giving Gs Eminent Domain power to purchase rights from Os suggests state thinks Gs should have to pay Os.

Qs on White? White v. N.Y. Gas Co.: DQ2.32
Under the reasoning of White, Os have trespass action against Gs who don’t purchase rights to use pool. White & Hammonds can’t be reconciled on this point. After White, Pennsylvania has different rule than Kentucky. Qs on White?

REINSERTING GAS & ESCAPING ANIMALS CASES : Setting Up Discussion of Argument By Analogy
Keep in Mind: Gas Companies (G) Reinserting Gas Produces Two Kinds of Disputes: Hammonds: G v. Owners of Lots Containing Part of Reinsertion Pool Who owns gas? If G owns gas, does G have to pay for right to use pool? If G doesn’t own, can other Owners extract reinserted gas? White: G v. Owners of Adjoining Pools: If reinserted gas leaks into reservoir not owned/controlled by G, does G lose property rights to gas?

Gas Companies (G) Reinserting Gas Produces Two Kinds of Disputes:
REINSERTING GAS & ESCAPING ANIMALS CASES : Setting Up Discussion of Argument By Analogy Gas Companies (G) Reinserting Gas Produces Two Kinds of Disputes: Hammonds: G v. Owners of Lots Containing Part of Reinsertion Pool White: Leaks (G v. Owners of Adjoining Pools) If exam Q, you could address the two kinds of disputes separately where you thought they raised different issues. E.g., might argue ACs better for leaks than for Hammonds. In comparing Alternatives (DQ ), we are going to address only Hammonds-type disputes

Argument By Analogy Oil & Gas: Escape
ACs & Possible Alternatives DQ White Rule: Reinserted Gas = Property of Gas Co. Hammonds Rule: Reinserted Gas = Unowned (Oversimplified ACs) More Complex [Complete] ACs (Consider marking, control, etc.) DQ 2.35 Oklahoma Statute (White footnote 2) DQ 2.36 “Airspace Solution to Hammonds problem.” [Other? Can raise with DQ2.37]

Pros & Cons of Alternatives to ACs (DQ ) Next Time: OXYGEN DQ2.35: Re Oklahoma Statute (I’ll Explain Now) RADIUM DQ2.26: Re Airspace Solution ALL DQ2.37: Ideas re Best Overall Option Might Consider: Importance of Reinsertion & Cheap Fuel Relative Importance of Landowners’ Interests Ease of Administration Public Reaction

Oklahoma Statute (p.102: fn2) “All natural gas which has previously been reduced to possession, and which is subsequently injected into underground storage fields, sands, reservoirs and facilities, shall at all times be deemed the property of the injector, his heirs, successors or assigns ….” = Reinserted gas stays property of Gas Co. (G)

Oklahoma Statute (p.102: fn2) “ … and in no event shall such gas be subject to the right of the owner of the surface of said lands or of any mineral interest therein, under which said gas storage fields, sands, reservoirs, and facilities lie, or of any person other than the injector, his heirs, successors and assigns, to produce, take, reduce to possession, waste, or otherwise interfere with or exercise any control thereover, …” = … and other owners of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action …

Oklahoma Statute (p.102: fn2) “ … provided that the injector, his heirs, successors and assigns, shall have no right to gas in any stratum, or portion thereof, which has not been condemned under the provisions of this Act, or otherwise purchased.” = … BUT G has no rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use via Eminent Domain or negotiated agreement .”

Oklahoma Statute (p.102: fn2) (Summary) (1) Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners (Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action , BUT (2) G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use. MEANS: So long as G buys rights through negotiation or eminent domain, Os cannot prevent reinsertion or take gas.

Oklahoma Statute (p.102: fn2) (Summary) Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners (Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action , BUT G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use. If G doesn’t buy rights from Os, doesn’t own gas in those parts of pool. Means Os can extract, but not bring trespass action. Might mean Gs will take risk that small Os can’t afford to extract and not pay them for rights. QUESTIONS?

Possible Alternatives to ACs: DQ2.36: Airspace Solution Possible State Regulation: Reinserted gas stays property of Gas Co.(G) BUT Surface Owners have no right to trespass action even if Gs haven't leased/bought space Like rule about airspace over surface: above certain height, no rights. Here, below certain depth, Surface Owner has no rights (once gas extracted).

Group Written Assignment #3 Due Sun. Nov. 19 @ 7 pm
QUESTIONS? Today In Class Friday By Until Thu 11:59 pm

Exam & Skills Practice Problems Class #30 + Remaining DFs
Class #30 (Today) Analogy DQs: 1st Poss. of Oil & Gas (Cont’d): 2.24 (D2): OXYGEN 2.25: KRYPTON 2012 XQ1B(i) (Custom) Mon/Wed 11/13+15 DF 1997 XQ2 (Analogy /1st Possession) Mon 11/20 DF 2007 XQ2 (Analogy /1st Possession)

XQ2: Argument By Analogy Sample: 1st Possession of Oil & Gas
Overall Q: How Useful Are ACs as Tools for Determining 1st Poss. of Oil & Gas? Background/Recap: Under Westmoreland, property rights to any amount of oil/gas from joint pool go to first person to lawfully extract it. XQ2: Three Common Approaches: Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences (Last Week) Usefulness of Doctrine (DQ2.24 = OXYGEN) (D1 Last Week) Usefulness of Alternatives (DQ2.25 = KRYPTON)

D2 RECAP: 2d Approach: Arguments re Usefulness of Rules/Doctrine (How Well Does the Toolbox Work?) Starting Point = Particular Legal Rules/Tests from ACs Not Applying to Facts of Problem. Instead Discuss Usefulness for New Job (Extraction of Oil & Gas) Generally Toolbox Can Be Useful Even if Some Tools Are Not, But More Useful Tools Make Toolbox Better for Job

D2 RECAP: 2d Approach: Arguments re Usefulness of Rules/Doctrine (How Well Does the Toolbox Work?) Discuss Usefulness of Particular Rules/Factors for New Job (Extraction of Oil & Gas) Generally Some Rules/Factors Might Warrant Two-Sided Discussion re Usefulness. Last Week I did for Depr. Of NL)

XQ2: Argument By Analogy Sample: 1st Possession of Oil & Gas)
OXYGEN: DQ2.24. Other Pierson/Liesner/Shaw: Rules/Factors/Tests that Would Work Fairly Well (and Why)

OXYGEN: DQ2.24. Pierson/Liesner/Shaw: Rules/Factors/Tests that Would Work Fairly Well (and Why) Could Try, e.g., : Actual Possession; Power & Control Escape Practically Impossible

OXYGEN: DQ2.24. Other Pierson/Liesner/Shaw: Rules/Factors/Tests that Would Not Be Very Useful (and Why)

OXYGEN: DQ2.24. Rules/Factors/Tests that Would that Would Not Be Very Useful (and Why) Could Try, e.g., : Mortal Wounding; Continued Pursuit

3d Approach: Are There Better Alternatives (Other Tools or Toolboxes) Starting Point = Identify & Describe Plausible Alternative Ways to Address the New Job (Extraction of Oil & Gas) Generally Discussing Relative Pros and Cons of Each of Your Alternatives as Compared to the ACs.

Disputes Most Likely to Occur Among Owners of Surface Lots Above Parts of Same Oil or Gas Pool Westmoreland: Property rights to any amount of oil/gas from joint pool go to first person to lawfully extract it Owning surface above pool onlygives you right to “hunt”for unextracted oil/gas.

DQ2.25: Possible Alternatives First in Time [ACs: First to Extract (Westmoreland)] First to Drill into Pool Gets Whole Pool First to Provide Relevant Notice (Registration?) Rights Proportional to Surface Ownership Pure Proportional Ownership Proportional Ownership with Fair “Fee” for Labor State Ownership

KRYPTON: DQ2.25. Pros & Cons Westmoreland (Rule of Capture) v. Distribution of Profits Proportional to Surface Area (w Reasonable Fee to Drillers for Labor and Risks) Assume Some Large Oil/Gas Fields Under Multiple Surface Lots Think About, e.g., Ease of Operation, Incentives, Effects on Market, etc. First Some Preliminary Qs to Help See What’s at Stake

XQ2: Argument By Analogy DQ2.25 Pros & Cons: Preliminary Qs
KRYPTON: Westmoreland & Incentives Under Westmoreland rule, what are people likely to do when they see that a neighbor is producing oil or gas from a well? What problems might that cause?

Westmoreland & Incentives: Wichita Falls, TX (1930s)

Westmoreland & Incentives What are people likely to do when they see that a neighbor is producing oil or gas from a well? Drill [many] competing additional wells What problems might that cause? Unneeded Wells: Environmental Concerns & Increased Cost of Extraction Decreased Total Production (Loss of Pressure)

Westmoreland & Incentives What are people likely to do when they see that a neighbor is producing oil or gas from a well? Resulting problems? Readings refer to “Oversupply” Primarily of concern to industry  low prices, low profits Good for consumers in short run Long run, may encourage overuse of petroleum products b/c cheap (cars v. mass transit, etc.)

KRYPTON: Proportional Allocation (w Labor Fees) How do you determine where the oil or gas field lies in order to determine proportional interests? In 1889? Today? How do you decide where drilling occurs?

KRYPTON: DQ2.25 Other Pros & Cons Westmoreland v. Proportional Allocation (w Labor Fees) (Next Slide has Some Useful Ideas)

XQ2: Argument By Analogy 1st Poss. of Oil & Gas: DQ2.25
Westmoreland Preferable to Proportional Certainty for Industry Hard to Divy Up w/o Good Geologic Info Low Administrative Costs Rewards Labor & Clear Act of Extraction Proportional Preferable to Westmoreland More Certain/Fairer to Small Landowners Lower Externalities (from Unneeded Wells) Collective Decision-Making (& Maybe Expertise) Can Reduce Harms from Well-Placement re Property Values or Community Interests from Expertise (D2” Friedson/Ribeiro)

Overall Q: How Useful Are ACs as Tools for Determining 1st Poss. of Oil & Gas? Background/Recap: Under Westmoreland, property rights to any amount of oil/gas from joint pool go to first person to lawfully extract it. XQ2: Three Common Approaches: Significance of Factual Similarities & Differences (DQ2.23 = RADIUM) Usefulness of Doctrine (DQ2.24 = OXYGEN) Usefulness of Alternatives (DQ2.25 = KRYPTON) QUESTIONS?

Exam & Skills Practice Problems Class #30 + Remaining DFs
Class #30 (Today) Analogy DQs (Cont’d): 1st Poss. of Oil & Gas 2012 XQ1B (Custom) Problem 1B(I): OXYGEN Mon/Wed 11/13+15 DF 1997 XQ2 (Analogy /1st Possession) Mon 11/20 DF 2007 XQ2 (Analogy /1st Possession)

2012 EXAM Q1 (OXYGEN): PROBLEM 1B(I) Does Custom Apply to Ads in Q (a) Cane-Ade KG Ad & (b) BB Online Ad Easy Qs/Hard Qs - Useful Preliminary Q During Exam - Spend Most Time on Hardest (Most-Contested)

2012 EXAM Q1 (OXYGEN): PROBLEM 1B(I)
Custom in Question (Sample Breakdown) In the U.S. advertising and broadcasting industries ads for ordinary commercial products and services can’t closely imitate; or use major components of ads for charitable organizations. Apply to problem like a legal standard.

MERE Ad in Q MERE is charitable organization that arranges to build extra rooms onto the houses of families who are taking care of multiple foster children. In MERE’s TV and internet, L-Bow stands in front of a house before renovations and does the EG. At the sound when his arms come together, the camera jumps to a view of L-Bow playing with smiling children in front of the renovated house.

Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In the U.S. advertising and broadcasting industries ads for ordinary commercial products and services can’t closely imitate; or use major components of ads for charitable organizations. YES. (Easy Q!)

Cane-Ade’s Kerry Grinder (KG) Ad KG in college game “complet[ed] a spectacular dunk shot that included a complete 360 degree turn in the air and then doing the EG as she landed.” KG signed a multi-million dollar contract to become a spokesperson for popular sports drink Cane-Ade. Cane-Ade ran TV ads that included footage of KG’s famous dunk including the EG. Networks disagree as to whether it violates custom. [Strong hint that I expect two-sided discussion.]

Cane-Ade Ad Oxygen: Easy Qs/Hard Qs?
Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In the U.S. advertising and broadcasting industries ads for ordinary commercial products and services can’t closely imitate; or use major components of ads for charitable organizations. YES. (Easy Q!)

Cane-Ade Ad Oxygen: Easy Qs/Hard Qs?
Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In U.S. advertising/broadcast industries. YES. (Easy Q!) Ad for ordinary commercial product. YES. (Easy Q!) “All the health benefits of Gator-Ade, but it Tastes Good!” can’t Closely imitate: Maybe need more info? Use major components of: Harder Q: Discuss Ads for charitable organizations. YES. (Easy Q!)

Cane-Ade Ad Oxygen: Policy as Tie-Breaker?
Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard Can’t Closely imitate: Maybe need more info? Use major components of: Harder Q: Discuss If unsure, can look to purpose of custom: “Many people in the industry believe that it is unethical when for-profit companies take advantage of the efforts of charities, especially if their ads might suggest to consumers that they are part of the charitable enterprise. Does Cane-Ade Ad Do This?

2012 EXAM Q1 (OXYGEN): PROBLEM 1B(I): BB Online
Note: 2 Ads in Same Q  Different Analysis Online Footage of BB Doing the EG BB developed a diet and exercise program. After using his own program for several years, BB succeeded in doing the EG. BB began marketing his program for profit on the internet to allow more people to do the EG. To demonstrate that the program worked, website provided footage of BB doing the EG himself.

2012 EXAM Q1 (OXYGEN): BB Online Easy Qs/Hard Qs?
Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In the U.S. advertising and broadcasting industries ads for ordinary commercial products and services can’t closely imitate; or Use major components of (Already Done Discussion of EG as Major Component; Cross-Reference) ads for charitable organizations. YES. (Easy Q!)

Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In U.S. advertising and broadcast industries (Interesting Q: Discuss) ad for ordinary comm’l services. YES. (Easy Q! Lots of Workout Programs on Internet) can’t closely imitate (Interesting Q: Discuss)

Custom in Q: Apply Like Legal Standard In U.S. advertising/broadcast industries (Interesting Q) Can’t closely imitate (Interesting Q) If unsure, can look to purpose of custom: “Many people in the industry believe that it is unethical when for-profit companies take advantage of the efforts of charities, especially if their ads might suggest to consumers that they are part of the charitable enterprise. Leave for You: Does BB Ad Do This? Matter that EG Closely Tied to Product Itself?

ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ELEMENTS D1 & D2 POWER POINT SLIDES"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback