legal humor Archives - Page 5 of 12

Incompetence

March 11, 2009

Professor P didn’t think highly of the lawyers in today’s case.¹
Professor P: “This is a classic example of a badly drafted document. When you use a form, make sure you are the master of the form. Do not use words that you don’t understand.”
Professor P: “So what did the lawyer do in this case?”
Jill: “Well, he didn’t know how to draft the will so he called up a lawyer buddy of his, and that’s where the ambiguous language came from…”
Professor P: “Thereby proving that two bad lawyers are not better than one bad lawyer!”

¹ Camp v. Camp, 220 Va. 595 (Va. 1979) The lawyer confused tenancy in common with a joint tenancy. (An explanation is here).

The specific clause in the contract is “as tenants in common with the right of survivorship.” The problem is that tenants in common have no right of survivorship.

Law School / on the record

Professor P on the Rule of Against Perpetuities

March 9, 2009

The rule is ruthless:
Professor P: “And the rule against perpetuities doesn’t care if the child’s interest ends by a child getting the property, or if the interest ends with the child getting hit by a bus and not getting the property. Either way the rule is happy.”

legal humor

The hungry junkie…

March 8, 2009

I misread my reading assignment¹ for Crimlaw, but stumbled upon the best case ever.²

The defendant was sentenced to 60 years to life on seven counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated battery, two counts of kidnapping, and four counts of aggravated burglary. Gasp, I know.

The fact section (after the jump) is strange. The gist: a crackhead goes on a crime spree. What is bizarre about the opinion is that after describing how the defendant robs and terrorizes someone, the court then mentions that the defendant ate his victim’s food.

For example:
At gunpoint, Crawford took Monhollon to the back door of the other half of his duplex and instructed him to say his phone was not working.

Monhollon’s neighbor, Bernice Looka, let him in and Crawford followed him. In the bedroom, Crawford went through Looka’s jewelry and dresser drawers. Then Crawford told Looka to take off her clothes and he handcuffed her to the faucet in the bathroom. He made Monhollon wait while he ate Looka’s ice cream and cookies.
The junkie ate at two houses.

I don’t know what is more bizarre: that the crackhead ate the victim’s food, or that the court mentions it in the opinion. The fact section is after the jump:

legal humor / the cases / unedited cases

Upon bizarre facts…

March 6, 2009

This week’s Crimlaw cases are just ridiculous:
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 that he may not, and instead, must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (with apologies to William Shakespeare and Hamlet, Act III, sc. 1).

Law School / on the record

Delaware does it differently.

March 6, 2009

Professor M feels strongly about Delaware’s statutory interpretation practices. Yes, there was a stamping of feet:
Professor M: “Wait, I also teach statutory interpretation and I don’t want you guys to assume the way Delaware treats statutes is the way that you should treat statutes. They jump right to common law.”
Professor M: “It’s like ‘bye bye statute! We don’t care about the statute! We are just going to go with the common law.’ (Professor slams book) “This is typical for Delaware. Don’t bother us pesky legislature!”
Professor M: “…I shouldn’t be so contemptuous of the legislature. The drafters really know what they are doing, but it doesn’t stop the courts from ignoring them anyway…”

legal humor / the cases

Snark from Connecticut

March 6, 2009

I love the humor that Judge Kravitz¹ injected in his opinion:²
[W]hile this Court does not pretend to be a “rocket docket,” this case has nonetheless proceeded extraordinarily quickly from filing to trial…
“[W]ith all due respect to the Connecticut General Assembly, the statute is not a model of clarity, and, in truth, its words are susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.
Other than the ability of the legislature to place a comma where one is intended, [The Plaintiff] advances no reason at all, let alone a cogent one, why all reclassifications, reverse stock splits, and recapitalizations should be subject to the supermajority rule no matter whether they increase the holdings of interested shareholders, while mergers, consolidations and share exchanges with a subsidiary-through which exactly the same economic outcome can be achieved-should be excepted from the supermajority provisions if they satisfy the 5% Rule.

¹ Hon. Mark R. Kravitz (according to Westlaw) This was part of today’s reading assigment for Corporations.
² Mason Capital, Ltd. v. Kaman Corp. (On Westlaw: 2005 WL 2850083)

Law School / legal humor / on the record

The Basics of Corporate Law

March 5, 2009

Nuggets of Corporate Law wisdom from Professor M:
Professor M: “Minority shareholders are frequently not stupid.”
Professor M: “There are many ways to skin a cat in corporate law. Corporate lawyers are very resourceful. If a client wants something, they find a way to get it done, at least as long as it’s not blatantly unethical.”
Jill posited that shareholder agreements could be used to protect minority shareholders. Professor M didn’t buy it:
Professor M: “Okay, that’s the Kum-Ba-Yah, “gee cant we all get along” reason for this…does anyone else have something more sinister?”
Then we got to Ronnen v. Ajax:
Professor M: “I hope you all learn enough in this class to never write a shareholder agreement¹ like this. You will understand why this was wrong in every way it could possibly be wrong.”
Professor M: “Do shareholders get to vote their shares in day to day operations? The answer is NO! No, no, no, no, NO! They do NOT! One of the most basic principles of this course!”

¹ Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Motor Corp., 88 N.Y.2d 582 (N.Y. 1996)

Law School / legal humor / on the record

“C’mon! Just hit me!” (Personal Jurisdiction fail)

March 4, 2009

Civil Procedure was funny today. I suspect it has something to do with Professor V realizing that our massive memo was due this morning.

We continued our Personal Jurisdiction discussion with Helicopteros¹:
Professor V: “The Supreme Court says, somewhat unhelpfully, that “whatever the standard is, it’s not met.”
Professor V’s trickery:
Professor V: “Would there be specific jurisdiction in Texas for a Third Party Complaint?”
Jill: “Well your note told us to look at the Rosenberg case…”
Professor V: “Was that helpful or misleading?”
Jill: “Well I thought it was helpful but maybe I was misled!”
The Plaintiffs argued² that cashing a check from Texas could serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction:
Professor V: “It’s surprising that the lawyers argued this with a straight face. It’s a bit of a stretch. And an argument like this tends to undermine your entire case…”
Professor V: “So if you receive a check for $10,000 from North Carolina, you’re not going to say, “Ooo, North Carolina.I don’t know if I want to cash this. I might be subject to personal jurisdiction there!”
C’mon just hit me:
Professor V: “The only other case we have about general jurisdiction is the All-State case where the insurance company claimed that there wasn’t jurisdiction. But with a name like All-State you’re asking for it! It’s like saying “C’mon! Just hit me!”
3,000? Really?
Professor V: “And then we have this law review article³ where the professor suggested that he looked at 3,000 general jurisdiction cases…and he somehow got tenure anyway…”

¹ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).
² among other things. This was the weakest argument.
³ 34 Seton Hall L.Rev 807 (Westlaw: 34 SHLR 807)

Law School / legal humor / on the record

Jack has no idea.

March 3, 2009

Jack shared his thought process with the class:
Professor V: “Let’s suppose California didn’t let non-residents sue within the state. What would happen on appeal?”
Jack: “I don’t know.”
Professor V: “Well, what about other classes that you’ve taken? Can you think of anything you learned last semester?”
Jack: “Let me think. Not contracts. Um… I have no idea. Seriously! I have no idea! Not contracts right? Um. No seriously, let me think. Um…What classes did I take?”
Professor V: “Well, we are dealing with multiple states…”
(silence, chuckles)
Jack: “Oh wait, Conlaw?”
Yes. Conlaw.

Then Jill had a 10 minute question. Professor V looks up at the clock and says:

Professor V: “I don’t know whether you were trying to run out the clock but you did.”

Law School / legal humor / on the record

OTR: Russian Roulette & Bottle Abuse

February 25, 2009

Criminal law was oddly amusing today. It might be the winds…

Bottle abuse?
Jill: “Does it matter that he¹ was trying to abuse his wife?”
Prof R: “How do you know he was trying to abuse his wife?”
Jill: “Well he threw a beer glass at her!”
The Social Policy of Russian Roulette…
Jack: “There may be a social policy that if you’re dumb enough to play Russian Roulette then you get to have your brains blown out.”
Prof R: “It’s sometimes called the Darwin effect.”

Professor R then showed us a powerpoint slide of Russian Roulette and apologized that he couldn’t make the graphic spin.

¹ Mayes v. People, 106 Ill. 306 (Ill. 1883)

humor / Law School / legal humor / on the record

How John saved Statutory Interpretation

February 24, 2009

After questioning Jill for 20 minutes, Professor M tried to move on:

Professor M: “Okay, let’s go with someone else. Jack Smith?”
Jill: “He’s not here today.”
Professor M: “Hm. Okay, what about John Doe?”

(Silence)

Professor M: “Fine, what about Andy Johnson?”

(Silence, a few chuckles)

Professor M: “…erm, Sarah Patel?”

(some people start laughing)

Professor M: “What are the odds?! I mean, MOST of you are here! See what happens when you don’t show up… Okay, okay, what about John Williams?”
John: “Here!”

(class applauds)

legal humor / picture of the day

Tort Balls

February 23, 2009

Winter is the best time to be a law student.

When I’m at the library too late I chuck a few snowballs on the way home. It’s the best thing ever.

But be careful, the undergrads pick up on it too. Try not to start a snow fight.

Law School / legal humor / on the record

Property is magic (and telesmatic?)

February 23, 2009

The Future Interests discussion in Property just got weird…
Professor P: “This is an area of the law where magic words matter.”

Jill: “So the holding of this case¹ is that the words “as long as” are more magic than the word “purpose?”

Professor P: “Yes! Exactly!”
Then, a few minutes later the magic theme allowed to Jack to give us a vocab lesson:
Jack: “So those words are less talismanic² than the other words?”

¹ Johnson v. Whiton, 159 Mass. 424 (Mass. 1893)
² A debate erupted whether the word Jack used was “talismanic” or “telesmatic”, which both have similar definitions… I learned two new words today!

Law School / on the record

Scalia = legal Rick James?

February 23, 2009

During statutory interpretation:
Professor M: “Scalia points to the conference history and admits ‘yeah that’s inconsistent with what I’m saying but I’m Scalia and I don’t care about legislative history…’”

The topic is the Scalia dissent in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1995)

legal humor

“Security Incident” in the Law Library

February 20, 2009

Did they really email this? The Sudafed must be playing tricks on me:
Security Incident in the Law Library:

This week, a wallet was left unattended in a high traffic location in the Law Library for at least two hours. When the student returned, the wallet was gone. The victim declined to file a police report.

This is even more ridiculous because UMinnesota libraries are open to the public during the day. Everyone from attorneys, high school students, to homeless people roam about.

I hope the wallet was in a backpack or something, and not just sitting out on a table for “at least two hours.”

I’d decline to file a police report too…

Law School / on the record

What about the Banana? Huh?

February 18, 2009

Sorry, what? Jack just responded to a question in Criminal Law… and I’m confused:
Jack: “…and the guy walking down the street carrying a banana thinking, ‘Ah! I’m going to kill someone today!’ is less likely to be successful than someone who planned it out.”
I’m not suggesting that Jack’s answers are incoherent. I’ll just listen better next time.

humor / Law School / legal humor / on the record

Hypo fail.

February 17, 2009

Everyone just lost it in Property. The topic is “ancient lights” (or lack thereof) in American jurisprudence. The professor doesn’t see how awkward his hypo about the “Pleasure Palace Hotel” is:
Professor P: “…and the plaintiff has a gigantic sign that says “Come to the Pleasure Palace!””

Okay, and now back to maturity.

humor / Law School / legal humor / on the record

Our librarian-comic/Soulja Bill

February 17, 2009

We had a mandatory statutory interpretation research lecture today. The research librarian was pretty funny:
Librarian: “You know how there are those people who get scared talking in front of large groups of people? Well, I should have checked where they keep the defibrillators beforehand…”
Librarian: “This is a diagram from Westlaw. I don’t think it’s that helpful but other people have told me it is. Personally it makes me a little dizzy, a little nauseous..”
Librarian: “And everyone just loves microfiche! Typically when we tell someone that we have the document in microfiche they suddenly don’t need it anymore…”
He also mentioned that there was a Soulja Boy version of School House Rock’s “How a Bill Becomes a law”… and sure enough…

Law School / legal humor / on the record

Jill keeps it real.

February 17, 2009

At UMN Law we have optional supplementary courses called “structured study groups” (SSG). The courses are taught by 2Ls and 3Ls.

Today our SSG instructor for Civil Procedure asked:
SSG Instructor: “You guys haven’t had multifactor balancing tests yet right?”
Jill: “Yeah, in legal writing last semester, but that was a disaster too…”

* The topic is personal jurisdiction balancing tests.

legal humor / the cases

Neighbors from hell: worse than robots?

February 16, 2009

My property professor assigned a hilarious “neighbor from hell” case. The court uses very unique phrase to describe the annoying conduct:

That the acts were done by defendants in person makes them even more culpable, more dreadful and repulsive than if robots had acted.
Here’s why you should be grateful you don’t live next to the Northridge family: