Gustav Holst, The Planets (1914) Recorded by Philharmonia Orchestra (1996)

1
Gustav Holst, The Planets (1914)Recorded by
Philharmonia Orchestra (1996)

• Monday 80 Minutes
• Finish Liesner
• Start State v. Shaw
• Krypton Written Shaw Brief Due

2
1914
3
It is conceded that if the plaintiffs had
substantially permanently deprived the wolf of
his libertyhad him so in their power that escape
was highly improbable, if not impossible, before
defendant appeared on the scene it had become
the property of plaintiffs and was wrongfully
appropriated by appellant.
4
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 .
5
DQ15. What test does the court appear to apply
as to when a trial court should grant a motion
for directed verdict?
6
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 .
7
IMPLICIT LEGAL TEST IN WISCONSIN (1914)

• Trial court can direct a verdict for a party if
  uncontested evidence removes all reasonable
  doubts that the partys claim has been proven.

8
What facts precisely does Wanie claim were not
proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
9
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.
10
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 .
11
Claim Must Be

• There was sufficient evidence that other peoples
  shots might have hit the wolf or that the
  Liesners shots didnt hit it to create
  reasonable doubts that one of the Liesners fired
  the shot that mortally wounded it.

12
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?

13
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. ?
• Two hunters, Liesner and another, who first shot
  a wolf sued a third hunter, Wanie who
  subsequently killed and took the wolf, seeking
  recovery of the wolf.

14
DQ15. Is the court certain that the test for
directed verdict was met in this case?
15
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 .
16
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.
17
HOLDING

• No, 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.

18
ALUMINUM

• DQ16. What are the superior advantages which
  the trial court had?

19
ALUMINUM

• DQ16. What are the superior advantages which
  the trial court had?
• Visual Observation of Witnesses
• Hearing Testimony

20
She asked me to take her to the dance.
21
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!!

22
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

23
Prevailing rule Property in wild animal
created if one has substantially permanently
deprived animal of his libertyhad 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 anothers intervening and
killing it.

• LEAD DQ17
• Meaning of Vested?
• Divested?

24
Example of Property Right Weve Discussed That is
Contingent (As Opposed to Vested)?
25
Example of Property Right Weve Discussed That is
Contingent (As Opposed to Vested)?

• RATIONE SOLI

26
Prevailing rule Property in wild animal
created if one has substantially permanently
deprived animal of his libertyhad 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 anothers intervening and
killing it.

• LEAD DQ17
• Policies Supporting?
• Policies Opposing?

27
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES

1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable

28
Prevailing rule Property in wild animal
created if one has substantially permanently
deprived animal of his libertyhad 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 anothers intervening and
killing it.

• DQ17 Evidence Needed to Prove? Look at Key
  Language

29
TESTS FROM LIESNER Property Rights if

• substantially permanently deprived animal of
  his liberty

30
TESTS FROM LIESNER Property Rights if

• substantially permanently deprived animal of
  his liberty
• so in their power that escape was highly
  improbable, if not impossible
• under the control of a person so that actual
  possession is practically inevitable

31
TESTS FROM LIESNER Property Rights if

• substantially permanently deprived animal of
  his liberty
• so in their power that escape was highly
  improbable, if not impossible
• under the control of a person so that actual
  possession is practically inevitable