Gustav Holst, The Planets (1914) Recorded by Philharmonia Orchestra (1996) Monday 80 Minutes: –Finish Liesner –Start State v. Shaw –Krypton Written Shaw Brief Due

1914

It is conceded that if the plaintiffs had substantially permanently deprived the wolf of his liberty—had 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.

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 ….

DQ15. What test does the court appear to apply as to when a trial court should grant a motion for directed verdict?

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 ….

IMPLICIT LEGAL TEST IN WISCONSIN (1914) Trial court can direct a verdict for a party if uncontested evidence removes all reasonable doubts that the party’s claim has been proven.

What facts precisely does Wanie claim were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

“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.”

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 ….

Claim Must Be: There was sufficient evidence that other people’s shots might have hit the wolf or that the Liesners’ shots didn’t hit it to create reasonable doubts that one of the Liesners fired the shot that mortally wounded it.

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?

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.

DQ15. Is the court certain that the test for directed verdict was met in this case?

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 ….

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.

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.

ALUMINUM DQ16. What are “the superior advantages which the trial court had”?

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

She asked me to take her to the dance.

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!!

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

“Prevailing rule” : Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had 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 another’s intervening and killing it.” LEAD: DQ17: Meaning of Vested? Divested?

Example of Property Right We’ve Discussed That is Contingent (As Opposed to Vested)?

RATIONE SOLI

“Prevailing rule” : Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had 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 another’s intervening and killing it.” LEAD: DQ17: Policies Supporting? Policies Opposing?

COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES 1.Actual Possession Likely 2.Actual Possession Practically Inevitable 3.Actual Possession Inevitable

“Prevailing rule” : Property in wild animal created if one has “substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty—had 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 another’s intervening and killing it.” DQ17: Evidence Needed to Prove? Look at Key Language

TESTS FROM LIESNER: Property Rights if … substantially permanently deprived [animal] of his liberty

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

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