1. ELEMENTS B 2019 POWER POINT SLIDES
Class #3: Friday August 16 NATIONAL ROLLER COASTER DAY

2. (Lunch Schedule Posted on Course Page Underneath Dean’s Fellow Info)
MUSIC: Beethoven Symphonies #1 (1800) & #3 (1805) Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of Europe Nikolaus Harmoncourt, Conductor (1991)
LUNCH TODAY
Meet on 12:25
Englander * Hernandez Khan * Kwak * Lopez Matiauda * Tamir
(Lunch Schedule Posted on Course Page Underneath Dean’s Fellow Info)
Miami-Dade Public Schools Open Monday; Commutes of Any Distance Next Week Will Be Significantly Worse Than They Were This Week
Tuesday: Turn in Lists of Teammates for Panels

3. LOGISTICS Info Memo Courtesy & Lateness Panels DQs
Group Assignments & Co-ordinators
Remind me we break at 10:00 on Fridays

4. Special Bonus for On-Time Arrivals
Two DISAPPOINTING REVELATIONS ABOUT CHILDHOOD FAVORITES 
FRIDAY Pop Culture Moment

5. ELEMENTS B: 8/18 Pop Culture Moment
(1) ALL FROOT LOOPS TASTE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF COLOR
(Same For TRIX & FRUITY PEBBLES)
Pop Culture Moment

6. ELEMENTS B: 8/18 Pop Culture Moment
(2) The Alphabet Song & Twinkle Twinkle Little Star Have the Same Melody
Pop Culture Moment

7. Pierson v. Post CASES IN CONTEXT
History of the Underlying Dispute (DQ1.01) (Class#1)
How Legal System Has Handled Similar Disputes (DQ1.02) (Precedent; Classes #1 & #2)
Overall Social/Historical Context (1805; Class #2)
How Society Has Handled Similar Disputes Outside the Legal System (DQ1.03) (Custom; continued from Class#2)

8. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03
CUSTOM & LAW
Examples of Situations Where Custom Differs from Law?
Not just custom and no law, but custom inconsistent w existing law.

9. Situations where custom differs from law Problems Caused by these
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03
CUSTOM & LAW
Situations where custom differs from law
Problems Caused by these
Differences?

10. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03 CUSTOM & LAW
Situations where custom differs from law
Problems caused by this difference include:
Uncertainty
Discretionary Police Power
Disrespect for Law
Loss of Intended Benefits of Legal Rule

11. To avoid these problems, gov’t can change law to conform to custom.
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03
CUSTOM & LAW
To avoid these problems, gov’t can change law to conform to custom.
Sometimes, improves situation
May be exercise of common sense
Soia & paths through the grass

12. Conforming law to custom might be a bad idea if …
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03
CUSTOM & LAW
Conforming law to custom might be a bad idea if …
Bad Customs (Potentially Harmful to Humans, Animals, Ecosystem)
Uncertain Customs (Disputed or Hard to Apply)
Surprise to Parties Affected
Issue Not Important Enough to Justify Additional Legal Intervention/Change in Law

13. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03 CUSTOM & LAW
Is Pierson v. Post a good situation to allow law to conform to hunters’ customs? (Likely to fit into any of the following categories? Other pros or cons?)
Bad customs
Uncertain customs
Disputed; or
Hard to apply
Surprise to Parties Affected
Not Important Enough Issue

14. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03 CUSTOM & LAW
Is Pierson v. Post a good situation to allow law to conform to hunters’ customs?
Lawyering Note: Often we’ll focus on
“Who is appropriate decision-maker?”,
rather than
“Is particular decision best one possible?”

15. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03 CUSTOM & LAW
When should law conform to custom?
Recurring question in many areas of law
Contract Law v. Normal Business Practices
Tort Law: Use Industry Practices as Standard of Care?
We’ll return to this question with regard to whaling customs in Unit Two

16. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.03
Qs on Custom?

17. 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?

18. BRING BACK BILL O’REILLY
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(b)
Significance of Facts
Why might it matter that the hunted fox is wearing a t-shirt?
BRING BACK BILL O’REILLY

19. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(b) Might want different rules for:
Pets/Domestic Animals (Different Rules Exist)
Fox w T-Shirt  Likely Domesticated or Pet
Endangered Species
Animals in School/Flock
Very Valuable Animal/Food Animal
Animal Directly Endangeriung Persons or Property

20. CASE BRIEF: Generally (Note on Color in Headers)
LIKE A RESUME
Standardized Information
Rarely the Whole Story
Range of Successful Ways to Present
Alter for Different Audiences
Remember that Future You is One of the Relevant Audiences

21. Pierson v. Post: Citation
3 Caines 175 (N.Y. 1805)
See Bluebook for citation forms generally.
N.Y. Supreme Court 1805 v. Now
In-Class Qs on Case Briefs:
Avoid “Is it OK that I put ….”
More General Qs or Wait Until After Class

22. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit (complete Statement unlikely to be stated explicitly in case itself)

23. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit
In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About

24. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit
In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About
In Legal Memos & Court Submissions: Quickly Explains to Reader Nature of Case You Are Discussing

25. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Who Sued Whom?
Under What Theory (Legal Cause of Action)?
Seeking What Remedy?
I’m Going to Ask These Three Qs in This Order for Every Case We Do in Units One and Two. Be Prepared to Answer Them in the Manner I’m Presenting Today

26. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Who Sued Whom?
In initial lawsuit
NOT “Who appealed?”

27. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
Not Helpful
“Plaintiff Sued Defendant” (always true; provides no info)

28. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
Not Helpful
“Plaintiff Sued Defendant”
“Post Sued Pierson” (provides no info about lawsuit)

29. Statement of the Case: WHO SUED WHOM?
Describe Parties in Way that Gives Sense of Subject of Lawsuit
Apartment Landlord Sued Former Tenant Who Abandoned Unit…
Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Developer ...
Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender Sued Manufacturer and Seller of Blender ...

30. Statement of the Case: WHO SUED WHOM?
Helps Clarity of Case Brief to Include Parties’ Names
Matheson, Apartment Landlord Sued Jacobson, Former Tenant Who Abandoned Unit…
Aldens, Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Landco, Developer,
Ortiz, Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender, Sued Gemco, Manufacturer, and Walmart, Seller of Blender ...
Then can reference by name in rest of brief.

31. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
sued Pierson, … (?)
Descriptions of parties should help you understand what lawsuit was about without including unnecessary detail …

32. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
Post, a blond 27-year old Dutch-American asthmatic unemployed son of a Revolutionary War hero ...
(None of this seems relevant.)
*Better descriptions of Post? (several plausible versions)

33. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, …
*Descriptions of Pierson? (again several plausible versions)

34. Pierson v. Post: Who Sued Whom?
Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit ...
(One plausible version)

35. CASE BRIEF: Statement of the Case
Who Sued Whom?
Under What Theory (Legal Cause of Action)?
Aldens, Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Landco, Developer, for Breach of Warranty …
Ortiz, Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender, Sued Gemco, Manufacturer, for Negligent Design...

36. Pierson v. Post: Under What Theory?
Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit,
*for …

37. Pierson v. Post: Under What Theory?
Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit, for “Trespass on the Case” (see 1st Sentence of Case) …
*Means?

38. Pierson v. Post: Under What Theory?
“Trespass on the Case”
Indirect Injury to П’s Property
E.g., left fire burning on own land & ruined П’s house
Compare “Trespass”
Direct Injury to П’s Property
E.g., entered П’s land and stomped on garden
*Why Might Injury Be Indirect Here?

39. Pierson v. Post: Under What Theory?
“Trespass on the Case” (Indirect Injury) v. “Trespass” (Direct Injury)
Could be indirect here because Pierson did not harm property in Q (fox) with his bare hands, but used some kind of weapon (maybe a projectile).
Distinction not important for our class (maybe in Torts)—
Opinions in Pierson do not discuss this distinction.
Distinction won’t be referenced in our later cases.
BUT good to get used to noting things like this.
Compare “Trespass”
= Direct Injury to П’s Property
Why Indirect Here?