*Disclaimer

This will (probably) only be funny to those who are in or have attended law school.
Jokes are not guaranteed to be funny and by reading them you have agreed to an arbitration clause.
Showing posts with label Things We Read. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Things We Read. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Half man, Half chicken (all awesome)

"The chicken butt remark was plainly a derogatory figure of speech intended to convey Vinnie's subjective belief, stated in a non-serious manner, that plaintiff was afraid to appear on defendants' radio program for fear of being ridiculed; the term could not have meant for the listener to take literally because its literal interpretation is nonsensical when applied to a human being." Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting

Oh really Judge Simons. What do you have to say about this!?! You've just been lawyered.
Exhibit A

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

When in doubt, reference an awesome movie

Possibly the best argument by parties trying to overturn EPA's greenhouse gas regulations:

"Like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz pointing Dorothy in opposite directions on the Yellow Brick Road, EPA's contradictory directions have misled the public."

www.eenews.net/assets/2010/09/16/document_gw_02.pdf

When a tomato has been splashed

"The first payment was also the last. Shortly after the sign was installed someone hit it with a tomato ... rust, also was visibile ... in its corners were 'little spider cobwebs'... 'some children's saying written down in here.'"
" And that really brings it down to the tomato. And of course, when a tomato has been splashed all over your clock, you don't like it." - Walter & Co. v. Harrison

Monday, November 15, 2010

"A delightful read"

Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc was presented to our class by a student as a "delightful read". It was indeed.

Worry not, the court found for the widow. So sit back and enjoy the language brought to you by Judge Pierce.

"Plaintiff Mrs. Audrey E. Vokes, a widow of 51 years and without family, had a yen to be "an accomplished dancer" with the hopes of finding "new interest in life". So, on February 10, 1961, a dubious fate, with the assist of a motivated acquaintance, procured her to attend a "dance party" at Davenport's "School of Dancing" where she whiled away the pleasant hours, sometimes in a private room, absorbing his accomplished sales technique, during which her grace and poise  were elaborated upon and her rosy future as "an excellent dancer" was painted for her in vivid and glowing colors."

Some more colorful language:
"Thus she embarked upon an almost endless pursuit of the terpsichorean art"
"she was influenced unwittingly by a constant and continuous barrage of flattery, false praise, excessive compliments, and panegyric encomiums"
"She was incessantly subjected to over-reaching blandishment and cajolery. She was assured she had "grace and poise""

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Slings and Arrows

"Fairall, who happened to have secreted a bow and quiver of arrows in the rafters to prevents its theft, loosed one but did not see where it landed ['I shot an arrow into the air, it fell to the earth, I knew not where' - The Arrow and the Song, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.] In this case, the defendant learned where it landed - in his back ... May a person who enters the habitat of another at 3 o'clock in the morning for the announced purpose of killing him, and who commences to beat the startled sleeper's bed with a stick and set fires under him, be entitled to use deadly force in self defense after the intended victim shoots him in the back with an arrow? Upon the basis of these bizarre facts, we hold (with apologies to William Shakespeare and Hamlet, Act III, sc. 1) that he may not, and instead must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." (bold added for emphasis)
- California v. Gelghorn (California 1987)

Monday, November 8, 2010

Bosom of Time

"... still the consequences of such past negligence were in the boson of time, as yet unrevealed."
 Marshall v. Nugent

Inimitable Glow

"Her duties and responsibilities in respect of the family unit complement those of the husband, extending only to another sphere. In the good times she lights the hearth with her own inimitable glow". - Montgomery v. Stephan.

When asked by Professor Pruitt, my Tort's professor, if I exuded an inimitable glow, I had to be honest and reply, "Yeah, sometimes." Upon appeal, this opinion is affirmed.