music: beethoven string quartet opus 131 (1826) vienna philharmonic leonard bernstein, conductor...
TRANSCRIPT
Music: Beethoven
• String Quartet opus 131 (1826)• Vienna Philharmonic
• Leonard Bernstein, Conductor
• Recorded 1977
Context of a Case
• Historical Background –Generally (1805)
–History of Dispute (DQ1)
• Prior Treatment of Problem–By Legal System (Precedent DQ2)
–By Society (Custom DQ3)
DQ3: Custom & Law
The dissent suggests that the court should defer to hunters’ customs.
Would that be a good thing?
Subquestions in DQ3 designed to help you think about this.
DQ3: Custom & Law
Do you know what customs are among hunters today?
If not, how would you find out?
DQ3: Custom & Law
Situations where custom differs from law?
DQ3: Custom & Law
Situations where custom differs from law?
Problems caused by this difference?
• Disrespect for Law
• Uncertainty
• Discretionary Police Power
DQ3: 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
DQ3: Custom & Law
When might conforming to custom be a bad idea?
DQ3: Custom & Law
When might conforming to custom be a bad idea?
• Bad customs• Uncertain customs
–Disputed; or–Hard to apply
• Surprise
DQ3: Custom & Law
Gov’t can change law to conform to custom.
Is Pierson v. Post a good situation to have law conform to custom?
DQ3: Custom & Law
Gov’t can change law to conform to custom.
Is Pierson v. Post a good situation to have law conform to custom?
Lawyering Note: Can focus on decision-maker, not decision
DQ3: Custom & Law
When should law conform to custom?
• Recurring question in many areas of law
• e.g., Contract Law v. Business Practices
• We’ll return to this question with regard to whaling customs in Unit II
DQ3: Custom & Law
Qs on custom?
LOGISTICS• End of Class: Submit Teams for Panels• I’ll post on course page over weekend:
– Panels – Updated assignment sheet– List of lunches– Slides from Today (Always Posted)
• E-mail to add or change lunch date or if you have to miss lunch
• “Control” on Monday
TRAFFIC MONDAY!!!
COMPETITION
v.
COOPERATION
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION
Two guys were camping in the woods, when the saw an angry bear rushing towards them…
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
• LRW• Rest of your classes
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION
•I have to outrun you
• Cooperation Improves You–Different points of View–Multiple Ears/Eyes–Groups Tend to Lift Whole Group
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION
•I have to outrun you
• Cooperation Improves You
• Patience & Consideration
CASE BRIEF = RESUME
• Standardized Information
• Range of Successful Ways to Present
• Alter for Different Audiences
• Rarely the Whole Story
STATEMENT OF
THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit
• In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit
• In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About
• In Court Submissions: Quickly Explains Nature of Cases You Discuss In Your Arguments
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Who Sued Whom?
WHO SUED WHOM?
• Plaintiff Sued Defendant (X)
WHO SUED WHOM?
• Plaintiff Sued Defendant (X)
• Post Sued Pierson (X)
WHO SUED WHOM?
• Post, the shy blond 27-year old Dutch-American asthmatic unemployed son of a Revolutionary War hero ...
WHO SUED WHOM?: Look for Relationship
Relevant to Legal Issue• Apartment Landlord Sued Former
Tenant …
• Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Developer ...
• Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender Sued Manufacturer and Seller of Blender ...
WHO SUED WHOM?
Post, [relevant description], sued Pierson, [relevant description]
Several Plausible Versions
WHO SUED WHOM?
One Plausible Version:
• Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit ...
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Who Sued Whom?
• Under What Theory?–Legal cause of action plaintiff
alleged
–NOT elaborate explanation of plaintiff’s lawyer’s arguments
UNDER WHAT THEORY?
• “Trespass on the Case”
(See 1st Sentence of Case)
= Indirect Injury to π’s Property
Side Note: Common Practice
• π = Plaintiff
• Δ = Defendant
UNDER WHAT THEORY?
• Trespass on the Case = Indirect Injury to П’s Property
• Compare “Trespass”= Direct Injury to П’s Property
• Why Indirect Here?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Who Sued Whom?
• Under What Theory?
• For What Remedy?
FOR WHAT REMEDY?
• Unclear From Majority Opinion
Possibilities?
FOR WHAT REMEDY?• Unclear From Majority Opinion• Dissent: “In a court … constituted
[of hunters], the skin and carcass of poor reynard would have been properly disposed of ...”
Suggests plaintiff sought return of the pelt.
FOR WHAT REMEDY?
• Unclear From Case
• Dissent: In a court … constituted [of hunters], the skin and carcass of poor reynard would have been properly disposed of …
• Could be Rhetoric: Normal remedy for Trespass on the Case is Damages
SAMPLE STATEMENT:(Lots of Possible Versions)
Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit, for trespass on the case, presumably seeking damages.
Qs onStatement of the Case
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
• Statement of the case basically describes original complaint (declaration)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE• Statement of the case basically
describes original complaint (declaration)
• Procedural Posture = Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
• Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court
• Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand Case
PROCEDURAL POSTURE• Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up
To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court• Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand
Case
• Here: After Trial Resulted in Verdict for Plaintiff, Appellate Court Granted Defendant’s Petition for [Certiorari] Review
PROCEDURAL POSTURE• Here: After Trial Resulted in Verdict
for Plaintiff, Appellate Court Granted Defendant’s Petition for [Certiorari] Review
Qs on Procedural Posture
FACTS
FACTS
• Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis.
FACTS
• Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis.
• Can’t determine relevance on 1st read; select or edit after reading whole case.
FACTS
Straightforward Here:
• Post was pursuing a fox he was hunting.
• Pierson, aware that Post was pursuing the fox, shot and killed it and took the carcass.
ISSUE & HOLDING
ISSUE
• Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Claimed Mistake.
ISSUE
• Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Claimed Mistake.
There will be both
a procedural component and
a substantive component.
ISSUE• Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court
Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake.
• Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently?
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 Misunderstand-ing About the Legal Rule Caused the Lower Court to Err
“[T]he declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain
an action.”
“[T]he declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain
an action.”
WHAT WAS
INSUFFICIENT
ABOUT IT?
Trespass on the case = indirect injury to plaintiff’s
property rights.
Allegation that π pursued the fox is insufficient because
pursuit alone does not create property rights in the fox, so π
had no property rights here.
WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to
State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted
ALLEGED MISTAKE
• The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted
• Allegation That Plaintiff Pursued the Fox Is Insufficient Because Pursuit Alone Does Not Create Property Rights in the Fox.
Now Let’s Put it All Together …
Now Let’s Put it All Together into a
Very Long Sentence …
Now Let’s Put it All Together into a
Very Long Sentence with Questionable
Grammar
Full Formal Version of 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?
Simple Substantive Issue:
Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in
the Fox?
Simple Substantive Issue: Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to
Create Property Rights in the Fox?
Cf. p.2: “[W]hat acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring
right to wild animals[?]”
Simple Substantive Issue: Is Pursuit of a Fox Sufficient to
Create Property Rights in the Fox?
Cf. p.2: “[W]hat acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring
right to wild animals[?]”
Note: Court doesn’t really answer this, so it can’t be the “issue” for our
purposes