Respond in a Word document, no more than 2 pages, double-spaced.
Is the rule in Pierson v. Post implied or explicit? Explain.
Please explain how, if at all, the outcome of the case would change if the circumstances were changed. Please do incorporate anything you have learned thus far into your response, such as authority.
1. What if the hunt occurred on Pierson’s land?
2. What if there was a prior case from Virginia with the essential same facts, but the court found that the initial hunter was entitled to the fox?
3. What if there was a law that said any hunter that was responsible for more than half of the effort to capture an animal is entitled to the animal?
4. What if this occurred in in 2017?
5. What if Pierson’s dogs had chased it without a hunter?
6. What if Post’s dogs had killed it (without Post around) and carried it home?
