Pierson v. Post¶
(1805). Pierson v. Post.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Unowned Property
- Pierson v. Post is a canonical U.S. common-law example: pursuit alone did not establish the property right in a wild fox; capture/control rules determined priority.
This sourceR. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805), opinion reproduced by the University of Minnesota Law Library, Classic Cases in Property Law. Primary judicial authority on pursuit and capture of a wild animal.
- Pierson v. Post is a canonical U.S. common-law example: pursuit alone did not establish the property right in a wild fox; capture/control rules determined priority.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4a67942562d7 · see in the full table