Talk:Ratione soli
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
[Untitled] edit
Did Pierson v. Post really reject the concept of ratione soli or did it distinguish the concept of ratione soli in a case involving ducks in a pond on a hunter's own land which conferred property rights over the ducks as opposed to the hunters in a wild, uninhabited, unpossessed and waste land? Rs156 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The fox in Pierson v Post is in owned lands, so ratione soli does not apply. The mention of ratione soli is only to distinguish the case from that doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brytus11 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Article cleanup edit
I took the liberty of cleaning up and expanding this article. I took out the discussion of Pierson v. Post because it doesn't help explain the concept of ratione soli in any meaningful way. I know it is a favorite of law school professors, but I don't think it belongs here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)