1 / 29

JAZZ : The Story of America’s Music (Disc 2: 1929-1937)

JAZZ : The Story of America’s Music (Disc 2: 1929-1937). LEAD: Place Kesler Brief Face Down on Front Table URANIUM & KRYPTON: Written Briefs for Taber & Bartlett Due Friday: Check New Briefing Form in Materials LUNCH THURSDAY: BETZ; BROOKS; CUPRYS; GALLO; NAROTSKY; OLSEN; RAINES.

gmaureen
Download Presentation

JAZZ : The Story of America’s Music (Disc 2: 1929-1937)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JAZZ: The Story of America’s Music (Disc 2: 1929-1937) • LEAD: Place Kesler Brief Face Down on Front Table • URANIUM & KRYPTON: Written Briefs for Taber & Bartlett Due Friday: Check New Briefing Form in Materials • LUNCH THURSDAY: BETZ; BROOKS; CUPRYS; GALLO; NAROTSKY; OLSEN; RAINES

  2. MARIE CURIE: Discoverer of Radium

  3. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO)

  4. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO) • Old Rule?

  5. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO) • Old Rule? Mullett/ Blackstone Rule • Externalities? OO Losses (Investment; Affection) • Change in Circumstances?

  6. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO) • Old Rule? Mullett/ Blackstone Rule • Externalities? OO Losses • Change in Circumstances? Development of Fox Breeding Farms • Increase in Externalities?

  7. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO) • Old Rule? Mullett/ Blackstone Rule • Externalities? OO Losses • Change in Circumstances? Fox Breeding Farms • Increase in Externalities? OO losses greater; may also affect state economy • Change in Rule?

  8. DQ55: Describe Albers in terms of Demsetz’s 1st Theory (Radium) • Decision: Finder’s Choice: Keep found animal v. Look for original owner (OO) • Old Rule? Mullett/ Blackstone Rule • Externalities? OO Losses • Change in Circumstances? Fox Breeding Farms • Externalities ↑? OO losses greater; state economy • Change in Rule? Court alters Mullett rule to provide more protection for fox farms

  9. DQ55: Would Demsetz Approve Result in Albers? (Radium)

  10. DQ55: Would Demsetz Approve Result in Albers? (Radium) Change in Albers creates stronger private property rights & fewer valuable escaped animals returning to commons. Seems consistent with tendency toward more private property that Demsetz sees as positive because of reduced externalities over time.

  11. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM

  12. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM Statement of the Case: Who Sued Whom? Kesler … and the Davises… sued Jones …

  13. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM Statement of the Case: Kesler, presumably the owner of an escaped fox, and the Davises, its caretakers, sued Jones, who killed the fox to protect a neighbor’s chickens … … Cause of action? Remedy Requested?

  14. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM Statement of the Case: Kesler, presumably the owner of an escaped fox, and the Davises, its caretakers, sued Jones, who killed the fox to protect a neighbor’s chickens, requesting damages for unlawful killing of the fox and unlawful retention of its pelt.

  15. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM 1st Issue? Did trial court err in entering judgment for defendant because …

  16. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM 1st Issue? Did trial court err in entering judgment for defendant becausea person has no right to kill a fox escaped from captivity when asked by a neighbor to help protect the neighbor’s chickens, which the fox is attacking

  17. Kesler & DQs 56-58:ALUMINUM DQ56: Both Albers and Kesler treat the question of the right to kill the fox as independent of the question of who owns it. If the plaintiffs owned the foxes, why is it legally acceptable for a third party to kill them?

  18. SEVERABILITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS • Can have some rights w regard to an object without having all possible rights

  19. SEVERABILITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS • Can have some rights w regard to an object without having all possible rights • Common Examples: • Landlord-Tenant • Ratione Soli • Items Affected by Necessity

  20. SEVERABILITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS • Can have some rights w regard to an object without having all possible rights • Here, OK because acting (for Mrs. W) as a reasonably prudent person would, under reasonably apparent necessity, to protect own property (chickens)

  21. DQ57: Factual Differences between Albers and Kesler?

  22. DQ57: Sample Factual Differences between Albers and Kesler. Why Might They Matter? • Kesler finder/defendant is not expert • Kesler caretakers still in pursuit when fox killed • Kesler fox has no tattoo • Kesler takes place in Idaho, not Colorado

  23. DQ58: Differences in Reasoning between Albers and Kesler. Albers assumes the finder would win under the rule in Mullett, so it carves out an exception to that rule. How does Kesler deal with the Mullett rule?

  24. DQ58: Differences in Reasoning between Albers and Kesler. Kesler holds that the fox never returned to natural liberty where she “had formerly escaped and been recaptured; she had been out of her pen but a short time; her owners were in pursuit [and] she was killed but a short distance from her pen….”

  25. DQ58: Differences in Reasoning between Albers and Kesler. Note what Kesler says about Albers: “Stephens & Co. v. Albers, a case squarely in point, supports the conclusion herein ....” [i.e., NOT the reasoning.]

  26. DQ58: Differences in Reasoning between Albers and Kesler. Note quote from treatise: But even where the inference that escaping wild beasts have animum revertendi could probably not be indulged in fairly, as where the wild animals of a menagerie escape from their owner's immediate possession, it is hardly to be expected that the courts would hold that they would therefore belong to the first person who should subject them to his dominion.

  27. ANNOUNCEMENTS • INFO MEMO #3 Online • Assignment I Comments & Models • Manning & Mullett Briefs: Comments & Models • Assignment II: DUE DATE CHANGE: 10/23

  28. ANNOUNCEMENTS • INFO MEMO #3 Online • INFO MEMO #4 Online Later Today • Info on my midterm (coverage; format; office hours, etc.) • General exam-taking tips • Albers & Kesler briefs

  29. ANNOUNCEMENTS • INFO MEMO #3 Online • INFO MEMO #4 Online Later Today • UNIT II Online • Whaling Cases (Trial Court Brief Form) • Oil & Gas • Working with Analogies • Final Exam Q1 & Q2

More Related