Talk:Ratione soli

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.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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. 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article cleanup

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)[reply]