LIBR 430 Week 4

Legal Analysis&Close Reading of Cases

Pierson v. Post 19th century case Fox hunters on ‘wild an uninhabited’ land Pierson, ‘well knowing’ Post was in pursuit of a

fox, killed it on his own and took it Question: Was Post’s pursuit of the fox, a wild

animal, enough to establish a right to it or a property interest in it that would sustain an action Pierson for killing it or taking it away?

How to decide? Classical Roman law says you have to

have the ‘body’ of a wild animal to posses it

Puffendorf (seriously!) and Bynkershock concur with the added thought that animals “mortally wounded or greatly maimed” belong to the person inflicting that wound--bodily possession not always needed

Court’s Conclusion Possession is required otherwise the mere sight

and pursuit of a wild animal would allow one to claim a right to it

If we allowed a right of ownership merely with sight and pursuit of an animal without even wounding it, there would be an unending stream of “quarrels and litigation”

Despite how “uncourteous or unkind” Pierson was toward Post his act produced no injury that can be remedied with damages

But wait…there’s a dissent When a person starts a hunt and

assembles hounds and horses and a hunting party and chases that quarry (the fox) to his final end, he has assumed a right to his prey

For someone to swoop in at the final moment and deprive the hunting party of its kill is wrong

Why? According to Barbeyrac, property in wild

animals can be acquired without bodily touch or injury if the pursuer is within reach or have a “reasonable prospect” of catching that animal

Also, husbandmen (farmers) are socially useful and benefit from the activities of hunting parties like this one; Do we want to discourage people from hunting “a beast so pernicious and incorrigible” by not allowing them their kill?

How does this case get briefed? Facts Procedural Posture Issue Holding Rationale Critique

Traditional case briefing Is great for class and use during discussions

during class but provides little help in understanding a case

Instead focus on Wendel’s three planes to first understand the case before you brief it: Factual Rule Policy

Factual Plane All facts related to the case:

How did the cause of action get here (procedural) What were the events that resulted in the dispute? How did the trial court decide if this is an appeal? More holisitc view of facts that includes procedural

history Think this as the case’s timeline

The Rule Plane The ‘legal’ plane What is the law and what issues or

disputes do the facts create? Interacts with the factual plane since it

considered the legal issues at each stage of the dispute (e.g. not who prevailed but why each party prevailed at each stage and what law this was based upon)

The Rule Plane The ‘legal’ plane What is the law and what issues or

disputes do the facts create? Interacts with the factual plane since it

considered the legal issues at each stage of the dispute (e.g. not who prevailed but why each party prevailed at each stage and what law this was based upon)

The Policy Plane How are societal objectives fulfilled by the

decision? What concerns might there be in the

broader society if this case is decided one way or another

Combine Analytically Bring the traditional case brief together

with the analytical planes for the most comprehensive case briefs

Analytical Case Brief FACTS ISSUE RULE PUBLIC POLICY HOLDING RATIONALE