I’ve said this before, but the hilarity is in the footnotes.
Today’s case is from my Wills & Trusts class: Succession of Bacot aka, “the gay will contest.”
There’s a noteworthy discussion at the end of whether a man can be a concubine of another man. “A concubine is as essential to a state of concubinage as a ghost is to Hamlet.”
Fact section after the jump.
Our first real case for Professional Responsibility is Converse v. Nebraska State Bar Comm’n (In re Converse), 258 Neb. 159 (Neb. 1999).
The case is about a law student who was not admitted to the bar because of his various…uh, indiscretions:
One of the final issues addressed by the Commission in its hearing was that of a T-shirt [the student] produced and marketed on which a nude caricature of [the law school dean] is shown sitting astride what appears to be a large hot dog.
That’s not even the worst of it.
The bulk of the fact section is after the jump:
There was much hollering going on in Arkansas…
My question is: why did the court mention that she just came back from getting her hair done?
On December 28, 2006, Saldana returned home with her son and a friend after getting her hair done. She and defendant spoke briefly but she could see that he was upset. After the friend left, Saldana placed her son in his crib and they began to argue. Defendant punched her in the face, fracturing her nose, and causing her nose to bleed profusely.
Another reason to change your Myspace privacy settings:
Hm. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Officer Brent Heller testified that he heard Defendant tell Lemonier that he had swallowed an eight ball of methamphetamine and that Defendant was sweating and “looking pretty rough.”
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.
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.”
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).
A University of Minnesota law school classic – Commonwealth v. Pestinikas, a case about a breach of contract that resulted in a murder conviction.
The gist: A couple agreed to care for an elderly man. They took his money, stuck him on an enclosed porch, and let him starve to death.