humor Archives - Page 11 of 19

Meeting Mr. Highwater

March 21, 2009

I went to work today to study.¹ A deserted office building is a prime study spot: There are power outlets, clean restrooms, and orthopedically correct chairs. Holler.

I swiped into the building right behind a large man wearing highwaters. Of course we shared an elevator. The elevator door closed and the awkward began:
Highwater: “Is it always this happening on Saturdays?”
Me: “Pardon me?”
Highwater: “Saturdays. Is it always this busy?”
Me: “Busy? There were only two people in the lobby.”
Highwater: “I know! It’s usually never this busy! Well, unless there’s a party going on. It’s only this busy when a party’s going on.”
Me: “Hm. Really?”
Highwater: “Yeah, maybe there’s a party going on today.”
Me: “Maybe.”
(elevator door opens, we get out, highwater starts walking away.)
Highwater: “Yeah. There was a probably a party going on. A party I wasn’t invited to. Me not being invited to a party! Hard to believe isn’t it?”
I just stood in the hallway and watched him walk off. Did that just happen?

¹ Meaning, I went to the building. I’m not on the clock.

legal humor / unedited cases

Clean house

March 18, 2009

Termination of parental rights cases have the most horrifying fact patterns.¹

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.K.B. and M.A.R., Parents. ²

On April 4, 2006, before the birth of C.C.R. and D.B., Isanti County Family Services (ICFS) received a report regarding C.R., born November 22, 2004, and D.T.R., born May 14, 2002, stating that the children’s home was “filthy,” that syringes and small baggies commonly used to package drugs were present in the home, and that mother had been heard asking others to obtain Vicodin for her.

ICFS conducted a welfare check of the home and observed that the inside of the home was littered with dirty dishes, old food, sharp knives within the children’s reach, chemicals, tools, and animal feces. D.T.R. was playing in the yard, which was “cluttered with broken glass, chemicals, car parts, and other garbage.”

D.T.R.’s mattress was “extremely dirty” and had no linens other than a blanket. A significant amount of animal feces was in the room. ICFS informed father, who was the only parent home at that time, that D.T.R. would be removed from the home due to the hazards observed, and that appellants must also give C.R. to ICFS.

When appellants turned over custody of C.R., she was afflicted with a sinus infection, a double-ear infection, and a possible throat infection.

¹ If you are bored, most local courts have online case archives. Your neighborhood is more akin to a Law & Order episode than you think…

² The full case is here.

humor / unedited cases

What not to do with a pen.

March 18, 2009

My goodness.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill¹

Appellant Robert Arthur Litzau challenges the district court order committing him as mentally ill…

Appellant is currently 66 years old. In 1999, he was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. As a result, he is required to register as a predatory offender.

In June of 2003, appellant was charged with possessing an incendiary device and making terroristic threats after he threatened to “blow up” a residence and “kill as many police officers as possible.”

humor

The banana-bearing monkey

March 14, 2009

There is a semi-sketchy Chinese restaurant in Jamie’s neighborhood that he has wanted to try for a while. We finally went yesterday.

The hostess was lopsided and creepy. The decorations were dated. The buffet was sparse and unfresh…so we opted for the menu…Jamie went to the restroom to wash his hands and came back with a massive grin:
Jamie: “You should go to the restroom before the food comes. Seriously. I strongly encourage it. Do you have your camera?”¹
I couldn’t resist. I went to the restroom and saw THIS posted on the door:

And in case you weren’t sure: YES that is a picture of a banana-bearing monkey sitting on a toilet.

Hilarity. It made the entire trip worth it.

¹ Yes, I usually carry a digital camera. Some things, like Mr. Banana here, have to be documented.

humor / Law School / legal humor / on the record

How about Hannah?

March 13, 2009

It’s the day before spring break, and the attendance in Corporate law is sparse.¹
Professor M: “Okay, well, I’m going to start calling, and we’ll see how this goes…”
I was prepared for a painful reenactment of Statutory Interpretation², but the first person Professor M called on was actually here!
Professor M: “Hannah Shooty?”
Hannah: “Here. It’s Slew-tee.”
Professor M: “Mooty?”
Hannah: “Slew-tee.”
Professor M: “Su-tee? Smooty?”
Hannah: “Um..”
Professor M: “Shooy? Mooey? Um, how about Hannah! So Hannah, what happened in this case?”

¹ A little under 2/3 of the class showed up.
² Yes, Professor M taught Statutory Interpretation as well. Today’s exchange reminded me a lot of Professor L last semester. But, to be clear, the most ridiculous naming incident is still the JD-baby incident from Contracts…

Law School / legal humor / on the record

Jill’s bloodlust

March 13, 2009

Another day in the Circus (aka Criminal Law). The topic¹ is police power to shoot a fleeing suspect:
Professor R: “Is this an incentive for the suspect to run? Often the suspect is younger, doesn’t have heavy equipment, and hasn’t been to the doughnut shop as much…”
Jill: “There’s a middle ground! You don’t haveta shoot him! You can taser him, or beat him with a baton!”

¹ The leading case is Tenn. v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985)

humor / legal humor

The Crash

March 12, 2009

So I’m in Corporations, reading¹ a slide about the Business Judgment Rule. My classmate sitting next to me starts to lean back in his chair and we hear a snap:

A-BOOM-a-noom! Both of us crash down to the floor and hit our heads on the ledge behind our seats…and hilarity ensued.²
Professor M: “Oh my god! Are you guys okay?”
(The entire class laughs, as we scramble back up)
Me: “Yes, but you now have to change your seating chart, ‘cus we’re moving!”
(We dust ourselves off and move our stuff, the laughing intensifies).
Professor M: “Yes! I’ll do that right now actually!”³
Law school is all grace and poise, don’tcha know?

¹ Seriously, this is the karma I get for paying attention…
² Total “But No Thanks” reference.
³ Yes, Professor M actually changed the seating chart as we moved over to non-broken seats. We sat in launch position for the rest of the class lest we repeat the crash scene.

Law School / legal humor / on the record

Um…what?

March 12, 2009

Corps just got complicated:¹
Professor M: So the corporation says that this doesn’t fit under the Connecticut Business Combination Act § 33-840(4)(A) but the court puts it under § 33-840(4)(E). How do they get there?
Jack (agape): “Um…what?”
Professor M: “Yeah, that’s my reaction too.”

¹ Today’s case is Mason Capital, Ltd. v. Kaman Corp., 2005 WL 2850083. I discussed the case here (the snarky judge).

Law School / legal humor / on the record

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.”

humor / Life

So a law student walks into a liquor store…

February 28, 2009

Tonight Jamie will host a meeting for his softball team. He wants to serve cocktails, so we went to the liquor store.

We are near the refrigerated beer aisle when I say,
Me: “Why bother with Cocktails? You should just get some Milwaukee’s Best! It’s classy.”
And of course there was a toothless semi-homeless man nearby, and of course he started talking to me:¹
Toothless: “What’s wrong with Milwaukee’s Best?!”
Me: “Nothing. It’s the business.”
Toothless: “That’s right!”
Toothless then goes to the end of the aisle and says,
Toothless: “Come here. Let me rock you world.”
A homeless man offering to rock my world? I couldn’t resist!

I walk over to the fridge, and Toothless pulls out a 20-ounce beer can of some trashy brand I’ve never heard of.
Toothless (holding the can of TrashLite): “You see this stuff? It’s only $1.34. You see the Coors? It’s $2.88! It’s over a dollar more! AND! Look!”
Me: “Oh, it’s 11% alcohol.”
Toothless: “Exactly. Get two of them and it’ll F-ya-up on the cheap.”
Me: “I’ll keep that mind.”
The toothless man grabbed a few cans of TrashLite and started walking off.
Toothless (Calling back to me): “Trust me! It’ll rock your world! Drink two of them tonight and call me in the morning! You’ll tell me I’m right.
Me: “Will do!”²

¹ A rule of life is that bloggers attract The Crazy. Every time.
² And no, I did not buy any TrashLite Beer.

humor / video

Camera fail

February 28, 2009

humor / video / vlogs

Snowmageddon.

February 26, 2009

Minneapolis had a snowstorm today! According to the news, may get as much 10 inches. Oy Vey!

We were already at school when the snow started. I interviewed my housemate throughout the day:

The snow made her want to cry apparently.

You can follow the latest Minneapolis snow storm tweets at #snowpocalypse and #snowmageddon.