COMPETITION%20v.%20COOPERATION

1
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

2
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

3
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

• I dont have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun
  you!!

4
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

• I have to outrun you
• Bad Model for Law School

5
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

• I have to outrun you
• Bad Model for Law School
• 1L Grading
• LComm
• Rest of your classes

6
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

• I have to outrun you
• Cooperation Improves You
• Different points of View
• Multiple Ears/Eyes
• Groups Tend to Lift Whole Group

7
COMPETITION v. COOPERATION

• Cooperation Improves You
• Patience Consideration
• E.g., Hurricane Help
• Evacuations
• No Power After
• Could Have Been You

8
Pierson v. Post

• CASES IN CONTEXT
• Overall Social/Historical Context (1805)
• History of the Underlying Dispute (DQ1 SEE
  SLIDES ADDED TO THIS SET)
• How Legal System Has Handled Similar Disputes
  (DQ2)
• How Society Has Handled Similar Disputes Outside
  the Legal System (DQ3)

9
Pierson v. Post

• 1805

10
Pierson v. Post 1805

• War in Europe
• Napoleon crowned Emperor in France King of
  Italy
• Destroys Russian Austrian armies at Austerlitz,
  gaining effective control of most of Central
  Europe
• BUT French Navy beaten badly at Battle of
  Trafalgar in October leaving Great Britain in
  control of seas

11
Pierson v. Post 1805

• Milestones
• Births Hans Christian Andersen, Alexis de
  Tocqueville, Joseph Smith Jr (founds Church of
  Latter Day Saints)
• Deaths Lord Cornwallis Adm. Horatio Nelson
• Beethovens Symphony 3 (Eroica) Opera Leonore
  premiere in Vienna (Music Note)

12
1805 Mandarin Oranges Imported into France from
Tangier (Morocco)
13
1805 Mandarin Oranges Imported into France from
Tangier (Morocco)

• TANGERINES

14
Pierson v. Post 1805

• 2d Term of Jefferson Presidency
• Michigan Territory Created
• US enters peace treaty with pirates of Barbary
  Coast of Africa after Marines win victory on the
  shores of Tripoli
• 1st American covered bridge built over Schuykill
  River in Penn. covered to prevent snow blockage
• Lewis Clark expedition

15
Significance of History for Us

• Background Not Leading to Multiple Choice Test
• Judges Lawyers ( Some Law Profs) Human
• Necessarily influenced by ideas events of own
  time
• Can make arguments about meaning of case or other
  authority from historical context
• E.g., Dissents suggestion that rules suggested
  in treatises should not be followed because times
  have changed
• E.g., nobody in 1805 is going to worry about
  effect of case on ecology might act differently
  today

16
Pierson v. Post DQ1

• SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (1) (FROM CLASS 1)
• Post (?) begins hunt starts chases fox
• Pierson(?), aware of hunt, shoots kills fox
• Probably confrontation where ? claims fox but ?
  takes it.
• Maybe negotiation
• Maybe discussions/social consequences that push ?
  to act
• ? goes to lawyer
• Fact investigation
• Legal research
• Possibly negotiation

17
Pierson v. Post DQ1

• SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (2) (FROM CLASS 1)
• ?s Lawyer files Declaration starting lawsuit
• ? gets lawyer (if not done before lawsuit filed)
• Fact investigation, Legal research, Possibly
  negotiation
• ?s lawyer files answer or motion to dismiss
• If motion filed, it was denied answer then filed
• Further investigation/negotiation
• Jury trial won by ?
• NY Supreme Court grants ?s motion for writ of
  certiorari
• Briefs filed by parties probably oral arguments
• Judgment for ?

18
Pierson v. Post DQ1

• 1805 v. Today
• Today start civil lawsuit with complaint (not
  declaration)
• Today can do court-supervised fact investigation
  process after complaint filed (Discovery)
• In most jurisdictions ? would use appeal to
  take case to next level, though in some
  situations, writ of certiorari used.

19
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• TYPES OF PRECEDENT
• Cases
• Statutes (passed by legislatures)
• Regulations (issued by executive branch/agencies)
• Constitution
• Treatises, Law Review Articles, etc.

20
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents Within a State
• Binding Authority
• Constitution
• Statutes
• Regulations
• Cases (common law)
• Persuasive Authority (Non-Binding)

21
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents Within a State
• Binding Authority
• Constitution ( Cases Interpreting)
• Statutes ( Cases Interpreting)
• Regulations ( Cases Interpreting)
• Cases (common law)
• Persuasive Authority (Non-Binding)

22
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents Within a State
• Binding Authority
• Persuasive Authority (Non-Binding)
• Cases (etc.) from Other Jurisdictions
• Treatises, Law Review Articles, etc.

23
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents Within a State
• Binding Authority
• Persuasive Authority (Non-Binding)
• Cases (etc.) from Other Jurisdictions
• Treatises, Law Review Articles, etc.
• PERSUASIVENESS VARIES w SOURCE
• Alabama v. California v. Ontario
• Prosser on Torts v. Brittany Spears on Torts

24
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents Among Levels of
  Government
• Federal Law
• only if applicable
• See Supremacy Clause of US Constitution
• State Law
• Local Ordinances and Regulations

25
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• Precedence of Precedents
• QUESTIONS?

26
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT (FROM CLASS 1)
• Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
• Books Written by Experts in Law
• Useful Because Smart People Looking at Same
  Problem
• No New York or Other U.S. Cases Cited
• Problem Likely Not Litigated Much
• Relatively Uncommon
• Not Much at Stake
• U.S. Not Very Old

27
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT (FROM CLASS 1)
• NY (and other states) adopted pre-Revolutionary
  English Common Law
• Majority says not relevant here because falls
  into one of two categories
• Cases arising under positive statute
  regulations
• Cases involving doctrine of ratione soli

28
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT
• Some English cases not relevant b/c they were
  discussed and decided upon the principles of
  their positive statute regulations.
• MEANS?
• Why does that make them irrelevant?

29
Ratione Soli By Reason of the Soil

• An unowned wild animal that enters privately
  owned land is considered the property of the
  landowner while it remains on the parcel.

30
Ratione Soli By Reason of the Soil

• An unowned wild animal that enters privately
  owned land is considered the property of the
  landowner while it remains on the parcel.
• Why might such a rule have developed?

31
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT
• Some English cases not relevant b/c decided under
  ratione soli
• These cases would be disputes between landowner
  and hunter, rather than between two hunters.

32
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT
• Why use precedents at all?
• Why shouldnt the court simply announce who wins?

33
Pierson v. Post DQ2

• PRECEDENT
• Why use precedents at all? Why shouldnt the
  court simply announce who wins?
• (at least) ConsistencyLegitimacyPredictability
  

34
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• Can view custom as kind of precedent what
  people generally do in situation.
• Certainly useful info for court what would
  likely happen if no legal intervention

35
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• The dissent suggests that the court should defer
  to hunters customs.
• Would that be a good thing?
• Subquestions in DQ3 designed to help you think
  about this.

36
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• Do you know what customs are among hunters today?
  
• If not, how would you find out?

37
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• Situations where custom differs from law?

38
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• Situations where custom differs from law
• Problems caused by this
• difference?

39
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• Situations where custom differs from law
• Problems caused by this difference include
• Disrespect for Law
• Uncertainty
• Discretionary Police Power

40
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• To avoid these problems, govt can change law to
  conform to custom.
• Sometimes, improves situation
• May be exercise of common sense
• Soia paths through the grass

41
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• When might conforming to custom be a bad idea?

42
Pierson v. Post DQ3

• CUSTOM LAW
• When might conforming to custom be a bad idea?
  (Includes)
• Bad customs
• Uncertain customs
• Disputed or
• Hard to apply
• Surprise to Parties Affected