Talk:Pierson v. Post

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Memories of law school

Ah, Pierson v. Post!. This was one of the first cases we began studying in my very first week of law school (probably was the same for half or more of the lawyers in the United States). My property law professor tortured me and my classmates forever (or so it seemed at the time) with the Socratic method, and this was probably a good case to get started with. After a few weeks of property law classes studying cases like this, I was half-convinced that you couldn't define possession and it was useless to try! But somewhere during that first year of law school (I was never consciously aware of when it happened), my thinking had changed.

Law school changed the way I think about things -- in subtle but important ways. I am so grateful to my law school professors and to the system that allowed me and my classmates to go through the process. Famspear 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least no nightmares of falling scales in Palsgraf. John wesley 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two judges, yet a reversal rather than affirmance on a tie?

There were apparently only two judges (justices) on this case, Tomkins and Livingston. That's not just from this article, that's what the Lexis copy of the opinion says.

If there were only two justices, and they split, generally under the ordinary parliamentary process of judicial review of a lower court, the the lower court's judgment stands; i.e. in this case, if there were only two judges, Livinston's opinion, for affirmance, would carry.

Can anyone explain this? Were there more than two judges, and perhaps only Justices Tomkins and Livingston were listed because only they filed opinions? TJRC (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...And the answer is that there were three justices hearing the case, the unaccounted-for justice being Chief Justice James Kent. I've updated the article accordingly. [1]. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]