1 / 66

ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES

Explore the concepts of competition and cooperation and how they relate to success and collaboration. Discover the advantages of cooperation and diversity in problem-solving and decision-making.

kfelton
Download Presentation

ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES

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. ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #4 Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (Realio Trulio Wednesday)

  2. MUSIC:Beethoven Symphonies #6 (1808) & #8 (1814)Recordings: Chamber Orchestra of EuropeNikolaus Harmoncourt, Conductor (1991) LUNCH TODAY Meet on Brix @ 11:55: Ferrer * Larey * McPherson Menda * Sacks * Zim LUNCH TOMORROW Meet on Brix @ 12:25 Dambuleff* Fry * Marion Schiffer* Shaffer Stonebraker* Utset

  3. ELEMENTS B Three Common 1L Issues Class #2: Confusion Class #3: Control Class #4: Competition v. Cooperation

  4. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION Background Qs: How Many of You … ? (Show of Hands; Look Around)

  5. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

  6. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

  7. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION I don’t have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you!!

  8. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION • I have to outrun you • Bad Model for Law School

  9. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION • I have to outrun you • Bad Model for Law School • 1L Grading • LComm • Rest of your classes

  10. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION • I have to outrun you v. • Cooperation Benefits You • Diversity (Broadly Understood) • Different experiences • Different points of view • Multiple Ears/Eyes

  11. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION • Cooperation Benefits You • Diversity (Broadly Understood)  • You Know More Collectively than Individually  • Good Group Work Tends to Lift Whole Group

  12. COMPETITION v. COOPERATION • Cooperation Benefits You • Patience & Consideration • E.g., in event of illness, family emergency, laptop disaster • Remember, could have been you

  13. LOGISTICS: CLASS #4 • Thursday Dean’s Fellow Sessions • This Week @ 5:00 (p.m.!) in A110 • Posted on Course Page: • Now: Panel Assignments • After Class Today: Check for Updated Assignment for Friday (Not Liesner) • After Class Friday: Extension of Materials and Assignment Sheet

  14. CASE BRIEF: Issue • Party Appealing Always Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. To Identify the Issue, Identify the Mistake.

  15. CASE BRIEF: Issue • Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. • Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently?

  16. CASE BRIEF: 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 Misunderstanding About the Legal Rule Caused the Lower Court to Make the Procedural Mistake?

  17. Pierson v. Post: Issue End of 1st paragraph: Pierson claimed that “the declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action.” *What did he think was insufficient about the claims Post made in the declaration?

  18. Pierson v. Post: Issue SUBSTANTIVE MISTAKE: Claim that Post pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone doesn’t create property rights in the fox. • Trespass on the Case = Indirect Interference with Property Rights. • If Post did not have “Property Rights” in the fox, Pierson did not commit Trespass on the Case when he killed it.

  19. Pierson v. Post: Issue *WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

  20. Pierson v. Post: Issue WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? PROCEDURAL MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case [as a Matter of Law] for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted As I noted in slides for DQ1.01, might have been raised at the beginning of the case; we don’t know.

  21. Pierson v. Post: Issue (Recap) PROCEDURAL COMPONENT OF MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case [as a Matter of Law] for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted • In other words, even if everything stated in Declaration was true, Post was not entitled to any legal remedy (or “SO WHAT?”).

  22. REPLYING TO DECLARATION/COMPLAINT: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (“So What?”) v. Answer (“Did Not!!”) Defendants often try versions of both, either concurrentlyre different claims or consecutively re the same claim.

  23. Pierson v. Post: Issue For Elements Briefs, Combine Both Alleged Mistakes PROCEDURAL MISTAKE: The Lower Court Should Have Dismissed the Case for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Could Be Granted + SUBSTANTIVE MISTAKE: Allegation that plaintiff pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone does not create property rights in the fox. [One gloriously awkward sentence.]

  24. Pierson v. Post: Issue For Elements Briefs, Combine Both Alleged Mistakes 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?

  25. Pierson v. Post: Issue Examples of Simple Substantive Issue (Appropriate for Torts or Property) IsPursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox? ORWhat Acts are Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

  26. Pierson v. Post: Issue Simple Substantive Issue E.g., What Acts are Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox? Cf. p.3: “[W]hat acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild animals[?]” For Elements briefs, state issue as a yes/no question.

  27. CASE BRIEF: Issue  Holding Simplest Version of Holding: • Issue is a question. • Answer question “yes” or “no.” • Repeat issue in statement form (adjust for positive or negative).

  28. Pierson v. Post: Issue Did the Lower Court Errby 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?

  29. Pierson v. Post: Issue  Holding YES. The Lower Court Erredby 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. Qs on Issue/Holding So Far?

  30. CASE BRIEF: Issue/Holding SIDE NOTE: CASES FREQUENTLY HAVE TWO OR MORE ISSUES/HOLDINGS • If so, your brief should separately list each issue followed by: • One or more versions of the holding deciding that issue • All rationales supporting that holding • Most of the cases in our first two units (including Pierson) only have one issue.

  31. CASE BRIEF: Issue/Holding IMPORTANT Q: HOW MUCH DETAIL DO YOU INCLUDE? • Try to include factual detail that seems relevant to analysis/outcome. • Can have different versions of issue and/or holding that incorporate more or less detail (narrower/broader). • For Elements, start with a narrow version of the issue & holding, then try broader holdings • DQ1.01.04-1.05 intended to help you start thinking about how to do this.

  32. Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Version of Substantive Holding: To get property rights in a fox, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

  33. Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Version of Substantive Holding (adding detail): To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

  34. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(a) Significance of Facts (Recap) Why might it matter that the fox is found on a deserted beach? On land that is not private property, no superceding claim by landowner (ratione soli).

  35. Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Versions of Substantive Holding (Generalizing): To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

  36. Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding Versions of Substantive Holding (Generalizing): To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it. Note: Might also get fight between two hunters (as opposed to between hunter and landowner) IF: • Landowner permitted both hunters to hunt; OR • Landowner chooses not to claim the animal. 1 or 2 probably true in next case (Liesner)

  37. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was in a well at the time it was killed.Why might that affect the result in the case? Assume well is also unowned.

  38. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Suppose fox was inside a well when it was killed… • Could treat as trap (“toil”), which case suggests equals possession if fox cannot escape (see p.4): Can get possession of animals when traps “deprive them of their natural liberty, and render escape impossible….” • Significance of this may depend on whether fox driven into well by Pierson or by Post. • If fox mortally wounded by fall into well, might belong to whoever drove it into well. • BUT Could still say that Post still did not have actual physical possession of the fox.

  39. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was in a well when it was killed…. Contemporary accounts outside the legal record say this was what happened. Assuming these accounts are correct, why isn’t this discussed in the case?

  40. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Assuming fox was inside a well when it was killed, why isn’t this discussed in the case? Probably not in declaration. Why might Post’s lawyer have failed to include this information?

  41. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Suppose fox was inside a well when it was killed.Why wouldn’t lawyer include it in declaration? • Maybe strategic decision. • Maybe lawyer didn’t think it was important. • Maybe lawyer didn’t know (asked wrong Qs)! Note Importance of Lawyer

  42. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts Given what you know about the case, anything wrong with this image of the well? Jack & Jill

  43. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts This kind of well on a beach on Long Island would fill with salt water.

  44. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts • I always assumed Pierson shot fox at bottom of stereotypical (Jack-and-Jill) well, BUT … • This kind of well on a beach on Long Island would fill with salt water. • Detail in contemporary account says: • Fox went into a “shoal well” (shallow hole on beach that collects fresh water). • Pierson hit fox on the head with a broken fence rail (“broke its crown”?). • ONE MORAL OF THE STORY: KEEP REREADING!!

  45. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.04(c) Significance of Facts • Note that NY SCt is ruling on the sufficiency of Post’s Declaration. • It appears that the Declaration doesn’t mention a well or how Pierson killed the fox, so those “facts” are not part of the court’s analysis/decision. • FYI: Bethany R. Berger, It's Not About the Fox: The Untold History of Pierson v. Post, 55 Duke L.J. 1089 (2006)

  46. CASE BRIEF: Narrower v. Broader Versions of Holdings Different ways to articulate what a court decided that contract or expand the scope/reach of the decision.

  47. CASE BRIEF: Narrower v. Broader Versions of Holdings NARROWER BROADER Covers more situations Includes fewer facts More general • Covers fewer situations • Includes more facts • More specific

  48. Pierson v. Post: Issue/Holding To get property rights in a fox [found on a deserted beach], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.(Narrower)  To get property rights in a fox [found on unowned land], you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.(Broader)

  49. FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Narrower v. Broader Versions of “Holdings” Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break-up that contract or expand the scope/reach of the lesson.

  50. FAILED RELATIONSHIPS: Narrower v. Broader Versions of “Holdings” Different ways to articulate the lesson you should take away from the break-up that contract or expand the scope/reach of the lesson. “I’ll never date a musician again!!”

More Related