1. ELEMENTS D1 & D2 2017 POWER POINT SLIDES
Class #1 Monday, August 14 & Tuesday August 15

2. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: Prof. Fajer
Please Select Seats
Only in the First Five Rows
MUSIC: Emile Giles, Piano
Beethoven, Piano Sonatas 21, 23, 26
Composed: 1803, 1805, 1810; Recorded: 1986
CLASS SCHEDULE FOR REST OF WEEK:
D1 = WED 7:55-9:20 & FRI 9:30-10:50
D2 = THU 7:55-9:20 & FRI 7:55-9:15

3. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Why Elements? Why Animals/Pierson?
Logistics
Begin Pierson & DQs 1.01 & 1.02

5. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Why Animals/Pierson? Why Elements?
Logistics
Begin Pierson & DQs 1.01 & 1.02

6. William Shakespeare The Merchant of Venice Act V Scene 1
Launcelot Gobbo (enters):
Sola, sola.

7. William Shakespeare The Merchant of Venice Act V Scene 1
Launcelot Gobbo (enters):
Sola, sola!

8. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Logistics Why Elements?
Why Animals/Pierson?
Logistics
Begin Pierson & DQs 1.01 & 1.02

9. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Logistics
Forms to Circulate
Seating Charts
Acting as Attendance Sheets Today
Preferred First Names
Lunches
Contact Info:
& Phone:
Write LEGIBLY

10. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Logistics
Dean’s Fellow:
Bryan Walsh
Sessions:
Mon & Wed 4:30-5:20
Room A110

11. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Logistics
Operation of the Class
Class time as rehearsal/workshop

12. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Logistics
Operation of the Class
Class time as rehearsal/workshop
Mechanics in Info Memo #1
Note Especially:
Courtesy
Panel System
Discussion Questions (DQs)
me if Qs

13. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: Next 3 Classes
Three Common 1L Issues
Class #2: Confusion
Class #3: Control
Class #4: Competition v. Cooperation

14. ELEMENTS D1 & D2: CLASS #1 Why Elements? Why Animals/Pierson?
Logistics
Begin Pierson & DQs 1.01 & 1.02

15. Pierson v. Post ALL CASES HAVE CONTEXT
History of the Underlying Dispute (DQ1.01)
How Legal System Has Handled Similar Disputes (DQ1.02)
Overall Social/Historical Context (1805) (Class #2)
How Society Has Handled Similar Disputes Outside the Legal System (DQ1.03) (Class #2)

16. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?

17. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?
2d sentence of case (p.3): “The declaration stated that Post … did ‘find and start … a fox,’ and whilst there hunting, chasing and pursuing the same with his dogs and hounds, and when in view thereof, Pierson, well knowing the fox was so hunted and pursued, did, in the sight of Post, … kill and carry it off.’

18. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?
Post did find and start the fox, hunted and pursued it.
Pierson, knowing the fox was hunted and pursued, did kill and carry it off.
So Why Is Case Called
Pierson v. Post?

19. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?
Why Is Case Called Pierson v. Post?
First Sentence (p.3): “This was an action of trespass on the case commenced in a justice’s court by the present defendant against the now plaintiff.”
Some appellate courts put the name of the party appealing first. (e.g., here; US Supreme Ct.)

20. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?
Why Is Case Called Pierson v. Post?
Some appellate courts put the name of the party appealing first.
Some appellate courts leave the name of the case as originally filed (e.g., U.S. Courts of Appeal)

21. Pierson v. Post: Who is Who?
Why Is Case Called Pierson v. Post?
Some appellate courts put the name of the party appealing first; some appellate courts leave the name of the case as originally filed .
SO HAVE TO READ CAREFULLY!!
First of many examples of variations in Rules or Procedure among the states and/or federal gov’t.

22. Fill in Sequence of Events
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.01
Fill in Sequence of Events
Post (п) has breakfast; begins hunt; starts fox.
П’s Lawyer files lawsuit.
N.Y. Supreme Court issues judgment for Pierson (∆).

23. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.01 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (1)
Post (п) begins hunt; starts fox & chases it on deserted beach
Pierson(∆), aware of hunt, kills fox
Probably confrontation where п claims fox but ∆ takes it.
Maybe negotiation
Maybe discussions/social consequences that push п to act (or that push ∆ not to turn over pelt)
П goes to lawyer
Fact investigation (П’s Lawyer interviews client & other witnesses)
Legal research
Possibly demand letter to ∆ and/or negotiation
П’s Lawyer files “Declaration” starting lawsuit

24. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (2) (After Lawsuit Filed)
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.01
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS (2) (After Lawsuit Filed)
∆ gets lawyer (if not done before lawsuit filed)
Fact investigation, legal research, possibly negotiation
∆’s lawyer files response [“Answer”] or motion to dismiss
If motion filed, it was denied; answer then filed
Further investigation/negotiation [Today: “Discovery”]
[Maybe: Pre-Trial Motions]
Jury trial (“verdict”) won by П
NY Supreme Court grants ∆’s motion for writ of certiorari
Briefs filed by parties & probably oral arguments
[Maybe additional negotiation]
Court deliberates, then issues opinion and Judgment for ∆

25. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.01 Verdicts & Judgments
Decision of a jury is called a “verdict”; ultimate decision by a judge is called a “judgment”
Very end of majority opinion on top of p.4: We are of opinion the judgment below was erroneous, and ought to be reversed.
Judgment must be entered even after a verdict:
Normally judge enters j-ment pursuant to verdict
Occasionally, if judge has strong reason to disagree, enters judgment essentially overturning verdict (“Judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”)

26. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.01 Procedure: 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, a losing ∆ would use “appeal” to take case to next level, though in some situations, writ of certiorari used (usually to get to highest level as with U.S. Supreme Ct.)

27. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.02 PRECEDENT
What types of authorities does the court rely on as precedent? Why are these authorities considered helpful?

28. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.02 MEANS? PRECEDENT
Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
Books Written by Experts in Law
Useful Because Smart People Looking at Same Problem
Treatises here all by experts in European “Civil Law”
MEANS?

29. Pierson v. Post: DQ1.02 PRECEDENT Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
Treatises here all by experts in European “Civil Law”
System based in Codes of Law & Statutes
E.g., Roman Law (Justinian); Napoleonic Code
Used Today in Continental Europe, Latin America, Louisiana, Quebec
Contrast “Common Law”:
Judge-made law based in cases
Used in systems developed from English Law (Most of U.S. & Canada, Australia and New Zealand, British West Indies, etc.)
In other contexts, “civil” contrasts with “criminal.”

30. Pierson Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.02
PRECEDENT
Pierson Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
Books Written by Experts in Law
Useful Because Smart People Looking at Same Problem
BUT Usually Least Important Type of Precedent
No NY or Other U.S. Cases Cited: Why?

31. Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
Pierson v. Post: DQ1.02
PRECEDENT
Majority Opinion relies on Treatises
No New York or Other U.S. Cases Cited: Why?
Problem Likely Not Litigated Much
Relatively Uncommon
Not Much at Stake (neither $$$ nor significant social issue)
U.S. Not Very Old in 1805