Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sharon-patterson |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Transition: Pierson Liesner
• Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property
Transition: Pierson Liesner
• Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property
• Fights Between 1st & 2d Hunter:– If Object Unowned, no Q that 2d Hunter Wins– Issue: Had 1st Hunter Done Enough to Get
Property Rts Before Intervention
Transition: Pierson Liesner
• Trying to Identify “Magic Moment” When Object Changes from Unowned to Property
• Fights Between 1st & 2d Hunter:– If Object Unowned, no Q that 2d Hunter Wins– Issue: Had 1st 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)
IRON 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
IRON 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
IRON 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
IRON 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
IRON 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:
• Certainty? (Mortal Wound as Creating Property)
1914
1914: DEATHS
• Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (Civil War Hero)
• John Muir (Naturalist)• Jacob Riis (Journalist/Author)• 19th Century Industrialists
– CW Post (Grape Nuts & Other Cereals– George Westinghouse (RR 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: 1st Battle of the Marne Begins
• Dec. 24-25: Christmas Truce
1914: World War I:
• June 28: Archduke Francis-Ferdinand Assassinated in Sarajevo: The Shot Heard Round the World
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
DQ15. What test does the court appear to apply as to
when a trial court should grant a motion for directed verdict?
The evidence in this case very strongly tends to establish all the facts requisite to ownership of the wolf by plaintiffs,—so strongly that all reasonable doubts in respect to the matter, if any would otherwise have remained, might well have been removed by the superior advantages which the trial court had. In the light of other evidence, all reasonable doubts may well have been removed as to who delivered the shot which so crippled the animal as to cause him to cease trying to escape ….
The evidence in this case very strongly tends to establish all the facts requisite to ownership of the wolf by plaintiffs,—so strongly that all reasonable doubts in respect to the matter, if any would otherwise have remained, might well have been removed by the superior advantages which the trial court had. In the light of other evidence, all reasonable doubts may well have been removed as to who delivered the shot which so crippled the animal as to cause him to cease trying to escape ….
IMPLICIT LEGAL TEST IN WISCONSIN (1914)
Trial court can direct a verdict for a party if uncontested evidence removes all reasonable doubts that the party’s claim has been proven.
What facts precisely does Wanie claim were
not proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
“That … the plaintiffs were in vigorous pursuit of the game, the evidence is clear, and that in a few moments, at most, they would have had actual possession, is quite as clear.”
“In the light of other evidence, all
reasonable doubts may well have been
removed as to who delivered the shot
which so crippled the animal as to cause
him to cease trying to escape ….”
Claim Must Be:
There was sufficient evidence that other people’s shots might have hit the wolf or that the Liesners’ shots didn’t hit it to create reasonable doubts that the shot that mortally wounded the wolf was fired by one of the Liesners.
ISSUE
Did TCt err by directing verdict for ptff because dfdt offered sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt about who fired the shot that mortally wounded the wolf, thus gaining ownership of it?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Liesner and another, who mortally wounded a wolf, sued Wanie, who subsequently killed and took the wolf, seeking recovery of the wolf.
• Liesner and another, who first shot a wolf sued Wanie, who subsequently killed and took the wolf, seeking recovery of the wolf.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Liesner and another, who mortally wounded a wolf, sued Wanie, who subsequently killed and took the wolf, seeking recovery of the wolf.
• Liesner and another, who first shot a wolf sued Wanie, who subsequently killed and took the wolf, seeking recovery of the wolf.
FACTS
• Plaintiffs mortally wounded a wolf and pursued it to the point that escape was improbable, if not impossible. D then shot & killed the wolf and took the carcass.
• The Trial Court found that Plaintiffs mortally wounded a wolf and pursued it to the point that escape was improbable, if not impossible. D then shot & killed the wolf and took the carcass.
DQ15. Is the court certain that the test for directed verdict
was met in this case?
The evidence in this case very strongly tends to establish all the facts requisite to ownership of the wolf by plaintiffs,—so strongly that all reasonable doubts in respect to the matter, if any would otherwise have remained, might well have been removed by the superior advantages which the trial court had. In the light of other evidence, all reasonable doubts may well have been removed as to who delivered the shot which so crippled the animal as to cause him to cease trying to escape ….
HOLDINGNo, the Trial Court did not err by directing a verdict for the plaintiff
because all reasonable doubts may well have been removed as to who
fired the shot that mortally wounded the wolf, thus gaining ownership of it.
The evidence in this case very strongly tends
to establish all the facts requisite to
ownership of the wolf by plaintiffs,—so
strongly that all reasonable doubts in respect
to the matter, if any would otherwise have
remained, might well have been removed
by the superior advantages which the trial
court had.
IRON
DQ16. What are “the superior advantages which the trial court had”?
IRON
DQ16. What are “the superior advantages which the trial court had”?
• Visual Observation of Witnesses
• Hearing Testimony
She asked me to take her
to the dance.
16. What do these advantages suggest about the appropriate role of
the appellate court in reviewing factual determinations made by juries
or trial judges?
DEFERENCE!!
RATIONALES
• Not a lot in a narrow case reviewing sufficiency of the evidence.
• Might give substantive rule as a doctrinal rationale.
• Might give “superior advantages” as a policy rationale
“Prevailing rule”: Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had him so in their power that escape was highly improbable, if not impossible….” “The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property interest in it accrues which cannot be divested by another’s intervening
and killing it.” LEAD: DQ17: Meaning of
Vested? Of Divested?
Example of Property Right We’ve Discussed That is
Contingent (As Opposed to Vested)?
Example of Property Right We’ve Discussed That is
Contingent (As Opposed to Vested)?
RATIONE SOLI
“Prevailing rule”: Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had him so in their power that escape was highly improbable, if not impossible….” “The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property interest in it accrues which cannot be divested by another’s intervening
and killing it.”
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable
LEAD: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable
LEAD: DQ17: Policies Opposing Choice of #2?
“Prevailing rule”: Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had him so in their power that escape was highly improbable, if not impossible….” “The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property interest in it accrues which cannot be divested by another’s intervening
and killing it.” LEAD: DQ17: Evidence Needed to
Prove? Look at Key Language