Raistlin

Recently I've been keeping up with Lowering the Bar, a legal humor site. Just recently I noticed its Case Law Hall of Fame, and boy there are some nuggets in there. Even lay people can appreciate some of the biting humor here, so I figured I'd share some of the best quotes. Admittedly I was way too amused by some of these.

First, there's Bradshaw v. Unity Marine, a case on whether to apply the statute of limitations for Texas or federal maritime law. It's only 4 pages long, so the whole thing can be read easily. Apparently, the lawyers didn't do a particularly good job helping the judge with the issues:

Originally Posted by BvUM decision

Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact--complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words--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. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.

Later, right after ripping apart the plaintiff's supplemental brief, the judge also noted:

Despite the continued shortcomings of Plaintiff's supplemental submission, the Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved choice of crayon--Brick Red is much easier on the eyes than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard splotched about Plaintiff's briefing. But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig.

After deciding that the state law applied and the plaintiff therefore lost on this motion, the court concluded in epic fashion which had me lol'ing:

After this remarkably long walk on a short legal pier, having received no useful guidance whatever from either party, the Court has endeavored, primarily based upon its affection for both counsel, but also out of its own sense of morbid curiosity, to resolve what it perceived to be the legal issue presented. Despite the waste of perfectly good crayon seen in both parties' briefing (and the inexplicable odor of wet dog emanating from such) the Court believes it has satisfactorily resolved this matter. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

At this juncture, Plaintiff retains, albeit seemingly to his befuddlement and/or consternation, a maritime law cause of action versus his alleged Jones Act employer, Defendant Unity Marine Corporation, Inc. However, it is well known around these parts that Unity Marine's lawyer is equally likable and has been writing crisply in ink since the second grade. Some old-timers even spin yarns of an ability to type. The Court cannot speak to the veracity of such loose talk, but out of caution, the Court suggests that Plaintiff's lovable counsel had best upgrade to a nice shiny No. 2 pencil or at least sharpen what's left of the stubs of his crayons for what remains of this heart-stopping, spine-tingling action.

Last but not least is Bruni v. Bruni, involving a vicious custody and alimony battle. The judge began by pointing out that the case involved "a husband and wife [who] have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment."

The opinion goes on to list the horrifying background of the two spouses (still legally married, but separated and now with new partners). Beginning with their background, after pointing out the details of they were married, the judge in essence asked if only those in attendance could see them now. He then included a footnote which stated "I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts."

The wife, Catherine, is particularly evil, and the worst of her conduct includes getting her family to join in by launching violent threats against the husband (Larry), as well as recruit the oldest child, a 13-year-old-daughter, in her quest to continually hurl insults at him. The husband offered evidence that, shortly before their separation, his wife had tried to run him over with her van. This statement was followed by a footnote, where the judge accurately noted that "This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart."

The threats notably included the threat to sic the Hells Angels on Larry, as Catherine's niece was engaged to one. This prompted another footnote by the judge:

The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine's niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).

According to Larry, Donna, a niece of Catherine's, later told him that: "I will get a bullet in my head if I don't sign the adopted papers. She called me back later and told me I'm as good as dead." She called a third time, "to tell me her father and uncles are coming to kill me." This was followed by another hilarious footnote:

Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, "repetition for emphasis." I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised.

The court goes on to discusses the details of the separation agreement, but also many more disturbing/hilarious anecdotes of this dysfunctional family, as well as the dry comments of a judge who obviously had seen too much from them to play nice. After one story of Catherine calling Larry "dickhead" in a text to her own daughter, the judge noted that "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'dickhead' as 'a stupid person.' That would not have been my first guess."

Extras:

In an opinion in Bradford v. Bradford, which came out just after Wayne's World, the court utilized amusing section headings and concluded that the defendant's "most bogus" attempt to remove the state case to a federal court was "not worthy," and ordered all defendants to "party on" in state court.

In Washington v. Alaimo, the plaintiff (an inmate who had continually filed frivolous suits) filed a "Motion to Kiss My Ass." Notable past motions of his were the "Motion for Restoration of Sanity," "Motion for Skin Change Operation," and the oft-used "Motion to Exhume Body of Alex Hodgson."