Throughout the semester I will be sure to post a blog on each course taken by 1Ls in their first semester at Loyola. Property is one of the five courses and the others are Torts, Civil Procedure, Legal Writing, and Legal Research. All the 1Ls are divided into three groups of about 65 students and put into sections. Each section goes to the 3 core classes together (Torts, Property and Civil Procedure). All three sections attend these classes, but they may have them with different professors.
Then we are broken into smaller groups of 30 for our Legal Research class. Then further for our Legal Writing class where we are down to 6-10 students per class to guarantee maximum feedback on our writing. So while my section has all the same professors for Torts, Property and Civil Procedure, we have different professors for the Writing and Research classes.
My section has class Monday through Thursday from 10-12 and then 2-4. Yes that’s right no classes on Fridays. It is really nice for 1Ls because it gives us a three-day weekend to prepare for classes and complete our outlines. Eventually we will use that time for moot court teams, law journals, or externships. Though for now, studying feels like enough.
Professor Matthew Sag teaches my Property course and according to his syllabus the course intends to “… deal with fundamental questions concerning the meaning and role of property in the modern American legal system. It is not a course about land or things; it is a course about how the law defines relationships between people with respect to land and things (even things without much thingness such as ideas and names).”
Here are some questions from cases that we have learned about in class that help illustrate the relationships of people to things:
-A hunter has been perusing a fox for hours. While in pursuit, another hunter kills it and collects it. Can the second hunter do that? (Pierson v. Post)
-A small rug company makes a popular pattern. Another larger company uses the same pattern and produces them more quickly and cheaper, allowing them to sell the rugs for less. Is that allowed? (Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk)
-A man on his deathbed gives his fiancé a key to a bureau, gifting it to her. Inside the bureau is his life insurance policy. Was she given the policy too? Or just the bureau? (Newman v. Bost)
As you can see, we cover a wide range of subjects under main principles of property. The principles that were used to determine the fox case, are also used to determine issues on whales and baseballs.
This course is unique to my other classes because Professor Sag assigns students to be on panels. Students on panel are expected to be experts on the reading assigned that day. Professor Sag primarily relies on those students to answer the majority of his questions. Other students are encouraged to chime in to offer additional thoughts. Honestly, it is a nice break from the cold-call tactic of the Socratic Method. I still come prepared for class, but I get to participate on my own terms and only when I feel I have the correct answer.
This course also has two small midterms, each worth 10% of our grade (the remainder 80% is reserved for our final exam). It is an opportunity for us to check in and see how we are understanding the material. It also forces us to get our outlines going and to study before December. They are 10 multiple-choice questions testing our application of the principles of property.
To help us prepare, Professor Sag and the tutors released two practice exams. The tutors held a review session to go over the answers and they prepared a power point, which highlighted all the important material. Below, I have attached a question from our practice exam. Can you figure out the answer?
A, a famous professional baseball player, is one home-run short of breaking the record for most home-runs in a single season. B, a big baseball fan, buys expensive seats in the section where A hits most of his home-runs, and wears his glove to the game. Sure enough, A hits a home-run during the 1st inning, and the ball is headed toward B. B reaches up, and the ball seems to fall into his glove, but he is immediately engulfed by a rowdy crowd. It is impossible to see whether, or for how long, B actually had the ball secured in his glove, and B is tackled, hit, and kicked. During the scuffle, the ball rolls onto the ground. C, another fan, picks up the ball from the ground and evades B’s attempt to take it back. Security guards arrive, and safely escort C away. At trial, video evidence is examined, but it is inconclusive.
You are the attorney for B. Which of the following is the BEST legal argument that B has a superior claim to the ball:
A. B was first-in-time to pursue the ball, and therefore, in accordance with the majority in Pierson v. Post, he has a superior claim over C.
B. In accordance with the holding in Ghen v. Rich, B did everything in his power to possess the ball and followed the standard custom for catching balls at baseball games.
C. B had constructive possession of the ball because it landed within the confines of the seat he paid for.
D. Before A hit the ball, it was owned by Major League Baseball. Assuming that B’s seat was more expensive than C’s, B has a superior claim because he invested more capital into Major League Baseball in an effort to obtain the ball.
So what do you think? Really B has a very weak case and the best argument is answer B. This was actually a real case, Popov v. Hayashi. Popov went to catch a record-breaking ball hit by Barry Bonds. Essentially the court ruled they had to sell the ball and split the money because Popov would have caught the ball had it not been for the interference of others. Ironically though, the ball was estimated to be worth over a million dollars. Though, they weren’t even able to sell it for a half million and their shares weren’t enough to cover the legal fees spent arguing over it. But you can check out the youtube video of the catch and decide for yourself, who has rights to the ball.
So with the help from the professor, tutors, and classmates, I felt very well supported going into the mid-term. It was of course difficult but we made it through. Plus one of our classmates wrote an invitation on the board to a post-celebration at a local bar. Many of the students came to relax and make new friends.
Students sharing a post-exam beer
My friends and I like to distress with food
Group photo!
Questions for Amie? Email law-admissions [at] luc [dot] edu with the subject “Ask Amie” and she will make sure to answer them.