1 / 60

Beethoven Cello Sonata #3 (1807-08)

Beethoven Cello Sonata #3 (1807-08). Jacqueline du Pr é, Cello Daniel Barenboim, Piano Edinburgh Festival (1970). DQ3. Precedent . … Why use precedents at all? Why shouldn’t the court simply announce who wins?.

perry
Download Presentation

Beethoven Cello Sonata #3 (1807-08)

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. BeethovenCello Sonata #3 (1807-08) Jacqueline du Pré, Cello Daniel Barenboim, Piano Edinburgh Festival (1970)

  2. DQ3. Precedent. … Why use precedents at all? Why shouldn’t the court simply announce who wins?

  3. DQ3. Precedent. … Why use precedents at all? Why shouldn’t the court simply announce who wins? - Consistency - Legitimacy - Predictability

  4. CASE BRIEF = RESUME • Standardized Information • Range of Successful Ways to Present • Alter for Different Audiences • Rarely the Whole Story

  5. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

  6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE • Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit

  7. STATEMENT OF THE CASE • Succinct Statement of Nature of Original Lawsuit • In Case Brief: Reminds You Quickly What Case Is About

  8. 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

  9. STATEMENT OF THE CASE • Who Sued Whom?

  10. WHO SUED WHOM? • Plaintiff Sued Defendant

  11. WHO SUED WHOM? • Plaintiff Sued Defendant • Post Sued Pierson

  12. WHO SUED WHOM? • Post, a blond 27-year old Dutch-American asthmatic unemployed son of a hero of the Revolutionary War ...

  13. WHO SUED WHOM? • Apartment Landlord Sued Former Tenant … • Purchasers of Leaky New House Sued Developer ... • Consumer Injured By Exploding Blender Sued Manufacturer and Seller of Blender ...

  14. WHO SUED WHOM? • Post, a hunter who had been pursuing a fox, sued Pierson, who killed the fox knowing of the pursuit ...

  15. STATEMENT OF THE CASE • Who Sued Whom? • Under What Theory?

  16. UNDER WHAT THEORY? • Trespass on the Case (See 1st Sentence of Case) = Indirect Injury to П’s Property

  17. UNDER WHAT THEORY? • Trespass on the Case (See 1st Sentence of Case) = Indirect Injury to П’s Property • Compare Trespass = Direct Injury to П’s Property

  18. STATEMENT OF THE CASE • Who Sued Whom? • Under What Theory? • For What Remedy?

  19. FOR WHAT REMEDY? • Unclear From Case

  20. 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 ...

  21. 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 … • Normal Remedy For Trespass on the Case is Damages

  22. SAMPLE STATEMENT • 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.

  23. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

  24. PROCEDURAL POSTURE • Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court

  25. PROCEDURAL POSTURE • Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court • Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand Case

  26. PROCEDURAL POSTURE • Procedural Steps After Complaint Filed Up To Step Getting Case to the Appellate Court • Limit to Steps Necessary to Understand Case • After Trial Resulted in Verdict for Plaintiff, Appellate Court Granted Defendant’s Petition for [Certiorari] Review

  27. FACTS

  28. FACTS • Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis.

  29. FACTS • Limit to facts relevant to court’s analysis. • Can’t determine relevance on 1st read; select or edit after reading whole case.

  30. ISSUE/HOLDING

  31. ISSUE/HOLDING • Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake.

  32. ISSUE/HOLDING • Party Appealing Claims the Lower Court Made a Mistake. Identify the Mistake. • Procedural Component of Mistake: What Should Lower Court Have Done Differently?

  33. ISSUE/HOLDING • 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 Err

  34. “[T]he declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action.”

  35. “[T]he declaration and the matters therein contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action.” WHAT WAS INSUFFICIENT ABOUT IT?

  36. Allegation that plaintiff pursued the fox is insufficient because pursuit alone does not create property rights in the fox.

  37. WHAT SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

  38. 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

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. Simple Substantive Issue: IsPursuit of a Fox Sufficient to Create Property Rights in the Fox?

  42. 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?

  43. YES. The Lower Court Erred 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.

  44. 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.

  45. Version of Substantive 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.

  46. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Why might it matter that the fox is caught on a deserted beach?

  47. Version of Substantive 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. To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

  48. Version of Substantive 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. To get property rights in a fox found on unowned property, you must be the first to “occupy” it, which means you must do more than pursue it.

  49. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Suppose fox fell into a well before it was shot.Change the result?

  50. DQ4. Significance of Facts. Suppose fox fell into a well before it was shot. Change the result? Contemporary accounts suggest this really happened. Why isn’t this discussed in the case?

More Related