Some rulings show the lighter side of the law

Much of our lives as litigators is lived in a stressful place somewhere between dread and desire regarding client vindication. Humor is not a common feature of this terrain. This is particularly true inside courthouse walls. Perhaps that is why spontaneous judicial humor sometimes provides rare occasions for deep laughter. It's almost as if the entire courthouse exhales momentarily from the sheer exertion of seeking and administering justice. And if the day to day dramas played out in court leave little room for humor, the rarified air of the appellate courts is usually an even dryer climate. Nonetheless, now and then, attempts at levity find their way into the decisional law. Here are a few nuggets from various judicial sources:

Fore!: "Plaintiff states that 'elements of the Contract are evinced in the documents which contain, among other things, the terms of the agreement ... .' This attempt to change arguments between the complaint and the brief is like trying to change clubs after hitting the golf ball." Giuliani v. Duke University, 2009 WL 1408869 * 3 (M.D. NC. 2009).

Suds: "As Proctor of this dispute between the representative of many manufacturers of household detergents and the Board of Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida ... the Court holds that Congress has specifically preempted regulatory action by Dade County. Clearly, the decision represents a Gamble since we risk a Cascade of criticism from an increasing Tide of ecology-minded citizens. Yet, a contrary decision would most likely have precipitated a Niagara of complaints from an industry which justifiably seeks uniformity in the laws with which it must comply ... And, having done so, we are Cheered by the thought that striking down the regulation by the local jurisdiction does not create a void which is detrimental to consumers, but rather merely acknowledges that federal legislation has preempted this field with adequate labeling rules." Chemical Specialties Manufacturers' Ass'n., Inc. v. Clark, 482 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1973) (Brown, J., concurring).

Us and Them: "This case comes to us on stipulated facts. The parties agree that summary judgment in favor of someone is appropriate." Century Surety Co. v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 109 Cal. App. 4th 1246, 1254 (2003), emphasis added.

Sugar Coating: "What the heck?!? At one point, the trial court commented, 'This is one of the most screwed up cases I've ever seen.' We heartily agree." Essex Insurance Co. v. Heck, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1515 (2010).

Sedative: "After this mind-numbing journey through RCRA, we return to the provision that is, after all, the one before us for examination." American Mining Congress v. United States EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Judicial Smoothie: "However -- to throw a couple metaphors into a blender here, just because a vexatious litigant can change his spots does not mean he or she has turned a new leaf." Luckett v. Panos, 161 Cal. App. 4th 77, 86 (2008).

The Living Dead: "Even so, while the plaintiffs' second, third, and fourth causes might have been moribund when the case returned from the [high court's] denial of certiorari, they were not declared dead and properly buried in a formal final judgment. The not quite yet dead corpse was still walking." Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 25 Cal.4th 688, 695 (2001).

Open Wide: The Civil Code definition of nuisance "is so broad that it could be applied indiscriminately to everything" and allowing it to substitute for traditional torts "would allow nuisance to become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort." El Escorial Owners' Ass'n v. DLC Plastering, Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1348 (2007), internal quotations and citations omitted.

Fantasy Land: "We can hardly believe that any trial lawyer would seriously anticipate an opportunity to examine the jurors after they were sworn. Although that opportunity may be enticing, its contemplation is wholly fanciful." Bly-Magee v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 24 Cal. App. 4th 318, 324 (1994).

Legal Scholarship: "This is an argument only a lawyer could love; it rests on semantics rather than on reason." Gallo v. Sup. Ct., 200 Cal. App. 3d 1375, 1380 (1988).

Literary Litany: "Complaints about this case are ... properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination ... [and] its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap." PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 705 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting.).

Mopping Up: "We know at the Court of Appeal what you think -- what trial judges think of us. That we survey the battlefield months and years after the battle has been waged, and we shoot the survivors. There's some truth there." Trial transcript with judge relating comments of appellate justice made during evidence seminar for judges.