Friday, March 23, 2012

Pierson v. Post case brief

Pierson v. Post

FACTS
-Plaintiff was hunting a fox on an uninhabited beach when the defendant killed the fox and
carried it off, knowing that the other was hunting.
-Court found for the defendant because pursuit is not sufficient to entail possession; mortal
wounding or capturing in a trap might be because entails deprivation of liberty and bringing
the animal under certain control
-Some indications in the case that if great amounts of labor had been invested, that might
have been sufficient.

ANALYSIS
-Justification for majority opinion (bright-line rule):
(a) Provides greater certainty and decreases administrative costs/number of disputes – does
not require an evaluation of whether there was a reasonable prospect of success.
(b) Facilitates trade – if it’s clear who owns what, it is not necessary to conduct an
investigation before purchase
(c) Provides notice as to who has a claim – may provide a consent based justification for
who has a property right (Rose).
(d) Served public policy end of killing foxes - provides incentives to develop better
technology b/c do not own the animal unless you kill it.

Disadvantages of bright-line rules:
(a) Inflexible – does not allow for adjustments based on circumstances – might decrease
trade
(b) Might lead to unjust results that undermine respect for the legal system


(a) Should recognize a property right if pursuer has a reasonable chance of success.
(b) Overriding policy concern should be decreasing the number of foxes and encouraging

investment in hunting (is this true?)

(c) Should have examined industry custom.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana Case Brief: Key Takeaways for Law Students and Legal Researchers

Case Brief: Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) Court Supreme Court of Montana Citation 368 P.3d 11...