LAW 402B QUIZ QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT SOLUTIONS.
In Pierson v. Post, the court holds that "mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he
became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him." In reaching this holding, the court
considers a public policy rationale referred to as judicial efficiency. Judicial efficiency pertains to the
effective use of judicial resources to prevent the waste of the court's time and resources. What does the
court say is their rationale for relying on the public policy of judicial efficiency? - (ANSWER)If the mere
pursuit of a fox amounts to an acquired property right, interception by others "would prove a fertile
source of quarrels and litigation."
In Pierson v. Post, the court decides whether Post's pursuit of a fox with his hounds "acquired such a
right to, or property in, the fox as will sustain an action against Pierson for killing and taking the fox
away." When referring to the fox, the court uses the Latin term "feræ naturæ." Define the term, "feræ
naturæ:" - (ANSWER)of a wild nature
In Popov v. Hayashi, Plaintiff Popov brings a suit for conversion, trespass to chattel, injunctive relief, and
constructive trust against Defendant Hayashi. As the court concludes that "there is no trespass to
chattel," the court focuses on the plaintiff's claim of conversion. The issue becomes whether Plaintiff
Popov achieved possession or the right to possession as he attempted to catch and hold on to the ball
amidst the crowd. What is the rule of law the court adopts in analyzing whether a qualified right to
possession supports a cause of action for conversion? - (ANSWER)Where an actor undertakes significant
but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is
interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in
the property which constitutes a qualified right to possession, thereby supporting a cause of action for
conversion.
In Popov v. Hayashi, the court refers to declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and constructive trust as
"actions in equity" stating that "[a] court sitting in equity has the authority to fashion rules and remedies
designed to achieve fundamental fairness." What is a court of equity? - (ANSWER)A court of equity is a
court that has jurisdiction in equity, which administers justice and decides controversies in accordance
with the rules, principles, and precedents of equity, and which follows the forms and procedure of
chancery; as distinguished from a court of law which has the jurisdiction, rules, principles, and practice
of the common law.
In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court evaluates Moore's claim of conversion
against the Regents by classifying it as a request to impose a tort duty on scientists to investigate the
consensual pedigree of each human cell sample used in research. However, the court states that such an
imposition "would affect medical research of importance to all of society." How does Moore's theory of
liability "threaten to destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research?" -
(ANSWER)If the use of cells in research is a conversion, then with every cell sample a researcher
purchases a ticket in a litigation lottery.
, LAW 402B QUIZ QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT SOLUTIONS.
In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court refers to the concept of property as being
abstract because "the concept of property is often said to refer to a 'bundle of rights' that may be
exercised with respect to that object." What are the principal rights the court refers to? -
(ANSWER)Principally the rights to possess the property, to use the property, to exclude others from the
property, and to dispose of the property by sale or by gift.
In Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, the court held that the tort of trespass to chattels does not apply to
"electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its
functioning...because it does not interfere with the possessor's use or possession of, or any other legally
protected interest in, the personal property itself." In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on
precedent stating that "[t]he cited line of decisions does not persuade us that the mere sending of
electronic communications that assertedly cause injury only because of their contents constitutes an
actionable trespass to a computer system through which the messages are transmitted." Per the court
in Hamidi, when do courts typically find electronic contact to be a trespass to computer systems? -
(ANSWER)The decisions finding electronic contact to be a trespass to computer systems have generally
involved some actual or threatened interference with the computers' functioning.
In Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, the court supports their holding with public policy considerations stating
that "we would be acting rashly to adopt a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes
of trespass law." While the court recognizes that "creating an absolute property right to exclude
undesired communications from one's e-mail and Web servers might help force spammers to internalize
the costs they impose on internet service providers and their customers," the court also states that it
would lead to "unresolved controversy." What are the potential implications the court notes in adopting
a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes of trespass law? - (ANSWER)But such a
property rule might also create substantial new costs, to e-mail and e-commerce users and to society
generally, in lost ease and openness of communication and in lost network benefits.
In Johnson v. McIntosh, the court decides the issue of whether Indigenous Peoples have the power to
give, and of private individuals to receive, a property title that can be sustained in a court of law. In the
court's holding, the court denies the power of Indigenous Peoples to convey land because "the powers
of government, and the right to soil, which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to
these States" after the revolution. However, Justice Marshall states that Indigenous Peoples rights were
"to a considerable extent impaired" as opposed to completely extinguished under the Doctrine of
Discovery. What does Justice Marshall say is the right that Indigenous Peoples do retain? - (ANSWER)the
right of occupancy
In Johnson v. McIntosh, the court holds that Native peoples are "incapable of transferring the absolute
title" of land to others. To reach its holding, the court relies on the Doctrine of Discovery. What is the
In Pierson v. Post, the court holds that "mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he
became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him." In reaching this holding, the court
considers a public policy rationale referred to as judicial efficiency. Judicial efficiency pertains to the
effective use of judicial resources to prevent the waste of the court's time and resources. What does the
court say is their rationale for relying on the public policy of judicial efficiency? - (ANSWER)If the mere
pursuit of a fox amounts to an acquired property right, interception by others "would prove a fertile
source of quarrels and litigation."
In Pierson v. Post, the court decides whether Post's pursuit of a fox with his hounds "acquired such a
right to, or property in, the fox as will sustain an action against Pierson for killing and taking the fox
away." When referring to the fox, the court uses the Latin term "feræ naturæ." Define the term, "feræ
naturæ:" - (ANSWER)of a wild nature
In Popov v. Hayashi, Plaintiff Popov brings a suit for conversion, trespass to chattel, injunctive relief, and
constructive trust against Defendant Hayashi. As the court concludes that "there is no trespass to
chattel," the court focuses on the plaintiff's claim of conversion. The issue becomes whether Plaintiff
Popov achieved possession or the right to possession as he attempted to catch and hold on to the ball
amidst the crowd. What is the rule of law the court adopts in analyzing whether a qualified right to
possession supports a cause of action for conversion? - (ANSWER)Where an actor undertakes significant
but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is
interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in
the property which constitutes a qualified right to possession, thereby supporting a cause of action for
conversion.
In Popov v. Hayashi, the court refers to declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and constructive trust as
"actions in equity" stating that "[a] court sitting in equity has the authority to fashion rules and remedies
designed to achieve fundamental fairness." What is a court of equity? - (ANSWER)A court of equity is a
court that has jurisdiction in equity, which administers justice and decides controversies in accordance
with the rules, principles, and precedents of equity, and which follows the forms and procedure of
chancery; as distinguished from a court of law which has the jurisdiction, rules, principles, and practice
of the common law.
In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court evaluates Moore's claim of conversion
against the Regents by classifying it as a request to impose a tort duty on scientists to investigate the
consensual pedigree of each human cell sample used in research. However, the court states that such an
imposition "would affect medical research of importance to all of society." How does Moore's theory of
liability "threaten to destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research?" -
(ANSWER)If the use of cells in research is a conversion, then with every cell sample a researcher
purchases a ticket in a litigation lottery.
, LAW 402B QUIZ QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT SOLUTIONS.
In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court refers to the concept of property as being
abstract because "the concept of property is often said to refer to a 'bundle of rights' that may be
exercised with respect to that object." What are the principal rights the court refers to? -
(ANSWER)Principally the rights to possess the property, to use the property, to exclude others from the
property, and to dispose of the property by sale or by gift.
In Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, the court held that the tort of trespass to chattels does not apply to
"electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its
functioning...because it does not interfere with the possessor's use or possession of, or any other legally
protected interest in, the personal property itself." In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on
precedent stating that "[t]he cited line of decisions does not persuade us that the mere sending of
electronic communications that assertedly cause injury only because of their contents constitutes an
actionable trespass to a computer system through which the messages are transmitted." Per the court
in Hamidi, when do courts typically find electronic contact to be a trespass to computer systems? -
(ANSWER)The decisions finding electronic contact to be a trespass to computer systems have generally
involved some actual or threatened interference with the computers' functioning.
In Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, the court supports their holding with public policy considerations stating
that "we would be acting rashly to adopt a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes
of trespass law." While the court recognizes that "creating an absolute property right to exclude
undesired communications from one's e-mail and Web servers might help force spammers to internalize
the costs they impose on internet service providers and their customers," the court also states that it
would lead to "unresolved controversy." What are the potential implications the court notes in adopting
a rule treating computer servers as real property for purposes of trespass law? - (ANSWER)But such a
property rule might also create substantial new costs, to e-mail and e-commerce users and to society
generally, in lost ease and openness of communication and in lost network benefits.
In Johnson v. McIntosh, the court decides the issue of whether Indigenous Peoples have the power to
give, and of private individuals to receive, a property title that can be sustained in a court of law. In the
court's holding, the court denies the power of Indigenous Peoples to convey land because "the powers
of government, and the right to soil, which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to
these States" after the revolution. However, Justice Marshall states that Indigenous Peoples rights were
"to a considerable extent impaired" as opposed to completely extinguished under the Doctrine of
Discovery. What does Justice Marshall say is the right that Indigenous Peoples do retain? - (ANSWER)the
right of occupancy
In Johnson v. McIntosh, the court holds that Native peoples are "incapable of transferring the absolute
title" of land to others. To reach its holding, the court relies on the Doctrine of Discovery. What is the
