Case Law Hall of Fame, Lowering the Bar Blog
Cold wet day here. (Hey, not complaining – we need the rain!) Others digging out from monster snow banks. Time for a giggle or two provided by Lowering The Bar. Each of these is worth a snicker, and some might evoke a full belly laugh. It is hard to find one favorite. Which one is yours? -CCE
Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2001) (‘Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact . . . to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.’).
Brown v. Swindell (La. Ct. App. 1967) (holding plaintiff could not recover damages for emotional distress allegedly due to embarrassment of owning a three-legged dog).
Bruni v. Bruni (Ontario Super. Ct. 2010) (‘Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment . . . . I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.’)
Collins v. Henman (S.D. Ill. 1987) (dismissing case because, even accepting petitioner’s claim that he was the Prophet Muhammed, he was still required to exhaust remedies in state court before filing federal habeas action).
Denny v. Radar Industries (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)(‘Appellant [tried to distinguish his case.] He didn’t. We couldn’t. Affirmed.’)
Fisher v. Lowe (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (‘We thought that we would never see/A suit to compensate a tree’). Bonus points: Westlaw did the summary and headnotes in verse, too.
Lodi v. Lodi (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (‘This case started when plaintiff Oreste Lodi sued himself in the Shasta County Superior Court.’).
Miles v. City Council (S.D. Ga. 1982) (relating the story of Blackie the Talking Cat).
Moore v. Moore (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) (recognizing husband’s right to fish without female interference, but ruling that minor infringements on it are not grounds for divorce; also finding that the term ‘hillbilly’ is not an insult, at least when used in Southern Missouri).
Nance v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962) (‘How do you know it was me, when I had a handkerchief over my face?’)
Noble v. Bradford Marine Inc. (S.D. Fla. 1992) (ruling, not long after ‘Wayne’s World’ was released, that ‘very excellent’ authorities showed that removal to federal court was ‘most bogus and way improvident’; ordering defendants to ‘party on in state court.’).
Norman v. Reagan (D. Or. 1982) (dismissing case against former President Reagan for allegedly causing plaintiff’s ‘civil death’ and also certain unspecified claims regarding a suspicious mailbox).
Pardue v. Turnage (La. Ct. App. 1980) (‘An exhaustive reading of the entire record convinces this court that Kenneth Turnage did give his stuffed bear to the Lessards. For the trial court to find otherwise was manifest error.’).
People v. Foranyic (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (ruling that there was probable cause for police to detain someone they see riding a bike at 3 a.m., carrying an axe)
R. v. Duncan (Ontario Ct. Justice 2013) (‘There is an ancient proverb to the effect that ‘those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.’‘)
Stambovsky v. Ackley (N.Y. 1991) (holding that a homebuyer could seek recission of sale contract based on his claim that he did not know house was allegedly haunted by poltergeists; based on estoppel, court ruled that ‘as a matter of law, the house is haunted’).
United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff (W.D. Pa. 1971) (dismissing case against Satan and unidentified staff members for lack of jurisdiction and uncertainty as to whether case could properly be maintained as a class action).
Washington v. Alaimo (S.D. Ga. 1996) (ordering plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for ‘filing a motion for improper purposes,’ such as those hinted at in the title of the pleading, ‘Motion to Kiss My Ass.’)
In re Marriage of Gustin (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that wife’s chopping through door of marital residence with a hatchet was not ‘marital misconduct’ sufficient to affect distribution of property).