Lower Court Opinion example essay topic

Facts: Plaintiff bought land from Piankeshaw and Illini os Nations in 1773 and 1775. The chiefs who they bought the land from were empowered by their people to do so. The chiefs were also in rightful possession of the land they sold. Procedural History: District Court of Illinois ruled against Johnson. Issues: Did the lower court error in deciding the Johnson did not have a legal title from the lands he bought in 1773 & 1775? (No) Judgment: "Judgment affirmed, with costs" Holding: The US, then, have unequivocally acceded to the great and broad rule (conquest or discovery) by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country.

They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty, as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. Re: Types of argument Rationale: Native Americans did not own the land, but only had a right of occupancy. Therefore it was open to "discovery or conquest". When England "discovered" the lands it owned them and thus negated the ability of the Native Americans to sell the lands to private individuals. Dis: it's not the law but he helps you understand he case -- -ask where do I stand on this issue- Why is it there and what does this say about property law or subject matter.

Comments: By itself this seems pretty horrible. Classifying all Native Americans. Didn't some live in houses? Didn't some fulfill what Europeans considered owning property? Cole's Comments: "Possession is 9/10th of the law" still rings true today. The first in time rule merely reflects what people do (refer to seats in school).

Begin by telling of the facts. But most helpful to start with cause of action. This is what the P and D are fighting about. In this case it is legal ownership of lands, and "action for ejectment". Each attempting to exercise the right to exclude over the other. Trespass is an ejectment.

This type of ejectment is known at quiet title, to make title certain who owns this piece of land. When attempting to quiet title there will be a winner and a loser. Notes: being there first somehow justifies ownership rights is a venerable ad persistent one. The theory of first occupancy, or first possession, data back to roman law and played a considerable part in the writings of Hugo Grotius and Samuel Put. - The common and civil law alike adopted the proposition that " taking possession of unowned things is the only possible way to acquire ownership of them" - John Locke - drew first occupancy into his labor theory of property (which he believed the native Americans were no part of) the...

He feels you work for it -- -that should be your land to keep and not first come, first keep. - Locke appears to have shared the common European view that Native Americans no substantial claim to the new world they had so long occupied. Pierson (killed) vs. Post (chasing) NY Supreme Court 1805 Page 19 Facts: Post-Plaintiff began chasing a fox with his dogs and hounds. Pierson, well knowing the fox was so hunted and pursued, did, in the sight of Post, to prevent his catching the same, kill and carry the fox off. Procedural History: Trial Court ruled in favor of the Post. Pierson then sued out a certiorari and now assigned for error, that the declaration and the matters the rin contained were not sufficient in law to maintain an action...

Issues: "The question submitted by the counsel in this cause for our determination is, whether Post, by the pursuit with his hounds in the manner alleged in his declaration, acquired such right to, or property in, the fox, as will sustain an action against Pierson for killing and taking him away?" (No) Judgment: The judgment below was erroneous, and ought to be reversed. Holding: "However, uncourteous or unkind the conduct of Pierson towards Post, in this instance, may have been, yet his act was productive of no injury or damage for which a legal remedy can be applied. (Pierson killed the fox-so he that's why he kept it) Rationale: The foregoing authorities are decisive to show that mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him. A differing opinion would say that the fox becomes whoever mortally wounds it, not just who has possession of the body. However, [i] f the first seeking, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared them to the control of their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, it would prove a fertile source of quarrels and litigation". Dissenting opinion: Livingston - "But who would keep a pack of hounds; or what gentleman, at the sound of the horn, and at peep of day, would mount his steed, and for hours together, [in bad weather] or a vertical son, pursue the windings of this wily quadruped, if, just as night came on, and his stratagems and strength were nearly exhausted, a saucy intruder, who had not shared in the honours or labours of the chase, were permitted to come in at the death, and bear away in triumph the object of pursuit?" This is not a case to which to refer back to old philosophers and lawyers, but to modern day sportsmen.

Comments: I prefer the dissenting opinion 1. What are the FACTS of the case? A. What happened to give rise to the suit? What is the story behind the controversy? Post and his dogs were in hot pursuit of a fox through public land when Pierson killed the fox, took it and collected the bounty on its pelt. B. What do we know about the original suit? Post, the original plaintiff, sued Pierson, the original defendant.

Post wanted the judge in the trial court to rule that, because Post was hotly pursuing and about to catch the fox, he, Post, owned the fox. If Post owned the fox when Pierson shot and took it, then Pierson would owe Post the bounty money. C. What happened in the lower court (s)? Post won in the trial court, i.e. the judge said Post did own the fox. [The reasoning behind the lower court judge's decision isn't reported.] D. Where are we now and why?

This decision we are reading is from an appellate court in New York (the Supreme Court). Pierson, after losing in the lower court, has asked the Supreme Court "to certify" (certiorari) the opinion of the lower court, i.e. to decide whether the lower court was correct or not. Pierson, of course, wants the lower court opinion reversed and the appellate court to say that Post didn't "own" the fox when he shot it. Since Pierson is the one who brought the appeal, he is (confusingly) called the plaintiff here.

2. What is / are the LEGAL ISSUE (S) in the case? What question (s) of law is the court or judge being asked to address? How does someone become the owner of (gain property rights to) a wild animal? Or, to use an old fashioned legal doctrine in which someone one acquires unowned property by "occupying" it, how does someone occupy a wild animal? Does hot pursuit constitute occupancy?

3. What REASONING does the court use to reach its decision? A. On what legal arguments did the appellant its claim? What statutes, precedent or principles did the appellant use There is no direct summary of Pierson's argument. We have to guess; but given the court's decision he probably relied on writings of famous jurists (and the absence of relevant precedent and relevant statutes. B. On what legal arguments did the appellee base its claim? What statutes, precedent or principles did the appellee use? There is no direct summary of Post's argument.

We have to guess; but given the dissent, he probably relied on a social utility argument. C. How did the court ( = the majority) justify its decision? Justice Tompkins, writing for the majority, started by looking for applicable legal rules, i.e. they turned to sources of law to see what principles apply. First they searched great jurists & scholars (a strategy much less common in modern court opinions). These authorities seemed to agree that mere pursuit was insufficient to create property rights in wild animals.

Next they looked for applicable principles enunciate from decisions in earlier law cases (precedent). There were none close enough to the facts of this case to help. [Earlier cases involving wild animals were found too dissimilar to guide this case.] They also suggested that no statutes that applied to wild animals on public land. Given the absence of binding regulations (statutes) or precedent, the court decided that mere pursuit would not give rise to property rights in the wild animal pursued. The based this decision on two reasons: First, sticking with the views of the great jurists would ensure intellectual consistency and certainty and second, allowing mere pursuit to give create ownership would be difficult to enforce and lead to lots of social disorder and legal conflict.

4. What is the court's HOLDING of the court (i.e. the answer to the question in #2)? Mere pursuit was held insufficient to give the pursuer ownership to a wild animal. The decision by the justice in the trial court below -- that Post, who was merely pursuing the fox, thereby gained property rights in the fox owned it -- had been wrong and was reversed.

Some Latin phrases roughly translated fera e naturae = naturally wild ratio soli = for that reason alone hosted human generis = hostile to humanity in general de mortis nil nisi bonum = don't speak ill of the dead sub jove frigid o = in bad weather (under a cold sun) tempor a mutant ur = times change Some legal jargon roughly translated an action for trespass on the case = a lawsuit for taking or using something owned or occupied by someone else sued out a certiorari and now assigned for error = Pierson claimed that the ruling in favor of Post in the trial court was wrong and he wants the appellate court to "certify" that the lower court made a mistake. declaration = a statement submitted by one of the litigants.