Legal Juice

Regular Juice readers no doubt remember this "Motion for Continuance." This one is not quite as funny (the bar is now pretty high), but it's still juiceworthy. In the Louisiana case of Harrell v. Spencer, et al., defense counsel filed, I shit you not, an "Unopposed Motion To Continue Trial Due To Conflict With The LSU Tiger's National Championship Game." In his supporting Memorandum, defense counsel states:

All counsel to this matter unequivocally agree that the presence of LSU in the aforementioned contest of pigskin skill unquestionably constitutes good grounds [under the statute - for continuing the trial]. In fact we have been unable through much imagination and hypothetical scenarios to think of a better reason.

What do you think the Judge did with the Motion? Granted. Trial continued to February 11, 2008. Okay, now I have a problem. February 11th is George Washington's birthday. Really. As Stephen Colbert says, "Look it up." You can read the Motion, Memorandum and Order here

It would be harder to make this stuff up than to tell you about it. Yes, Mr. Imran Khan, or Bristol, England, filed a claim against his employer for offering wine as an incentive. Mr. Khan, a Muslim, claimed that he was a victim of racial and religious discrimination because Muslims may not drink alcohol. He asked for damages for "hurt feelings" before the employment tribunal. The result? A unanimous raspberry. Said Chairman Clive Toomer:

A teetotal non-Muslim would have been in precisely the same position as the claimant. In those circumstances it did not seem to us that the claimant could show that there was, in fact, less favourable treatment than would have been afforded to such a hypothetical comparator.

Indeed. You can read more, but not much, here.

There's a legal doctrine in some states called social host liability. In a nutshell, it means if someone gets ripped at your bar (or house), you may be liable if that person hurts someone in a car accident. Mr. Dube really tried to stretch the doctrine. Bhoge and three of his buddies had been drinking most Friday nights for about a 1 1/2 years. One night, Bhoge was trashed, drove the wrong way down a one-way street, and seriously injured Mr. Dube. Dube first sued Bhoge, and got an undisclosed amount (probably not much). So then Dube sued the bar (who was dismissed) and some of its employees (also let out of the case), and BHOGE'S THREE DRINKING BUDDIES.

Why would the drinking buddies be liable? Social host liability! Dube's lawyer argued that

Lanphear was a social host because he entertained the others by paying for the drinks, and alternatively that the foursome was essentially a "drinking club" in which each effectively hosted the others.

The result? Drinking buddies everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief. The suit against the drinking buddies was tossed. Although friends should look out for each other (and be concerned about the harm a drunk-driving friend can cause to others), it's another thing to hold the friend legally responsible for his buddy's stupidity. You can read the opinion, Dube v. Lanphear, et al. (Mass. App. 2007) here.

Timothy Walker (who, per his lawyer, "developed a bizarre theory that all adult males were smelly") was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in New South Wales, Australia. He felt that he was not getting the proper medical attention. So, he told the staff he was feeling better, and was discharged. Eleven days later, he was feeling "a mixture of negative things." He grabbed an extension cord, and climbed a 30-foot tree in his back yard with the intention of hanging himself.

At the top of the tree, "things just didn't seem as hard as they did before," said Mr. Walker. "I felt better than I had for a long time, so I started to climb down." Then tragedy struck. Mr. Walker fell, fractured his spine, and is now a quadriplegic.

Mr. Walker is suing the Wentworth Area Health Service for negligence, claiming that more should have been done for him. As to why he sought no medical treatment in the eleven days after his discharge, he said it was because he "didn't get any help at the hospital." The civil suit is currently underway.

Suspected of smoking in the boys room, you are escorted to the principal's office. Tactically, it's probably not smart to call the principal a "fucker, a fag, and a fucking fag." That's what Mr. L was alleged to have done. And the punishment? Suspension? Expulsion, maybe for a repeat offender? No, young Mr. L was charged with a crime - "Interference with Staff, Faculty or Students of Educational Institutions" - a class three misdemeanor!

His public defender, Eric Vanatta, after asking his client "what the fuck he was thinking" [okay, I added that part], decided to attack the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violates his client's right to free speech under both the United States and Colorado Constitutions. He does so by tracing the origin of the word, and discussing, in a hilarious way, how pervasive the word is in our culture. No fucking way (cuff me) I can do this justice. So here it is, the entire Motion to Dismiss the Constitutionality of Fuck, "Fucker" and "Fucking Fag"
from Colorado v. C.L., a Child (Dist. Ct. of Larimer County, Co.)

Thanks to Cindy Hill for submitting this Motion to Legal Juice!

Mr. Washington's "Motion for Reconsideration" (click hereto see the document) reads as follows:

A while back I filed a Motion for the American People to Kiss My Ass Also Skin Change Operation to White. It's all right to be white. I think it's cool and groovie. But I think I erred with my Motion for a Skin Color Change Operation because that would cost too much money and that would be a waste of taxpayers money. I move this court for a complex change like Michael Jackson; his skin is pretty and white but I decline on the nose job Jacko has; because he really messed up but he is pretty and white. I think it's alright to be white and I move this court on the same.

And the court's ruling?

Continue reading "Motion For A Skin Change Operaton To White (But Not A Nose Job Like Jacko)" »

Spell check, the devil's proofreader.

So you're an attorney with a trial coming up, but are still recovering from back surgery. You want the court to continue the trial. You even have a doctor's note! So you file a "Motion for a Continuance" with one teeny, tiny typo:

Plaintiff moves the court for a continuance of the trial for the reason that counsel for the plaintiff is recovering from dick surgery ...

Now that has got to hurt! Click here - ouch! - to see the Motion and the doctor's note (for the injured disk).

While Mr. Swinyer was in jail, [former] correctional officer Cole admitted that he assaulted Mr. Swinyer by grabbing him around the throat and shoving him against the wall in response to - what else - a "donut" comment (really). Mr. Swinyer filed suit and litigated the case himself. The docket contains over 100 entries. In the end, more than 2 years after the case began, Judge Leighton held that the injury was de minimus and dismissed the case. (Here's the Court's decision.)

Understandably, Mr. Swinyer did not take the news well. Here is the Notice of Appeal he filed:

I hereby am informing you that I am appealing the asshole Ronald B. Leighton's decision in this matter.

You have been hereby served Notice. You're not getting away with this shit that easy.

Signed this 10th day of July 2006. George C. Swinyer, Jr. Click here to view Mr. Swinyer's Notice of Appeal.

This was not well-received. The Court rejected the Notice of Appeal, stating that it was "not taken in good faith." (Read it here.) Soon thereafter, the case was closed.