The CIA and FBI are at it again!

Engle v. United States, 736 F. Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1989), aff'd 902 F.2d 28 (1998).

Shirley Engle alleged the CIA and FBI drugged and hypnotized her, placed electronic monitoring devices in her clothing, and even sneaked into her house at night to take blood from her arm. The chemicals they used on plaintiff caused "skin eruptions, itching, burns, numbness . . . ." (If the chemicals caused her to be numb, how does it itch and burn?)

Neither the CIA nor the FBI had any records on Shirley. The Court dismissed the case.

The Case That Could Not Be Lost. Or Won.

Lodi v. Lodi, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994)

The court was confronted with a claim by a man who sued himself for mismanaging his own trust fund. The litigant acted as his own lawyer, representing both sides on appeal. He lost below and on appeal. Affirming, the appellate court wrote:

In the circumstances, this result cannot be unfair to Mr. Lodi. Although it is true that, as plaintiff and appellant, he loses, it is equally true that, as defendant and respondent, he wins! It is hard to imagine a more even handed application of justice. Truly, it would appear that Oreste Lodi is that rare litigant who is assured of both victory and defeat regardless of which side triumphs.

The opinion was fair to Lodi, even as to the assessment of costs: “[E]ach party will bear his own costs."

Blackie the Talking Cat

Miles v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, 551 F. Supp. 349 (S.D. Ga. 1982)

Carl and Elaine Miles challenged the authority of the City of Augusta to levy an occupation tax. They own "Blackie, The Talking Cat." Carl Miles had trained Blackie to speak several words and phrases of the English language. The City wanted to exact money for a business license because Carl and Elaine had solicited and accepted contributions from downtown pedestrians who wanted to hear the cat speak. Plaintiffs lived off the contributions received for Blackie's orations.

The Judge confessed that he had seen and heard a demonstration of Blackie's abilities:

The point in time of the Court's view was late summer, 1982, well after the events contended in this lawsuit. One afternoon when crossing Greene Street in an automobile, I spotted in the median a man accompanied by a cat and a woman. The black cat was draped over his left shoulder. Knowing the matter to be in litigation, and suspecting that the cat was Blackie, I thought twice before stopping. Observing, however, that counsel for neither side was present and that any citizen on the street could have happened by chance upon this scene, I spoke, and the man with the cat eagerly responded to my greeting. I asked him if his cat could talk. He said he could, and if I would pull over on the side street he would show me. I did, and he did. The cat was wearing a collar, two harnesses and a leash. Held and stroked by the man Blackie said “I love you” and “I want my Mama.” The man then explained that the cat was the sole source of income for him and his wife and requested a donation which was provided. I felt that my dollar was well spent. The cat was entertaining as was its owner. . . .

In a footnote, the Court also said:

For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, people have carried on conversations with cats. Most often, these are one-sided and range from cloying, mawkish nonsense to topics of science and the liberal arts. Apparently Blackie's pride does not prevent him from making an occasional response to this great gush of human verbiage, much to the satisfaction and benefit of his “owners.” Apparently, some cats do talk. Others just grin.

Ultimately, Blackie's owners were required to get a license.

A name by any other name. Please.

Long-time reader, attorney Jody R. Nathan (almost a week!), contributed a list of her favorite case names and other miscellaneous decisions. Jody has an innate appreciation for symmetry and cheap laughs.

Bowlin v. Alley, 773 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1989)

Dyer v. Emergency, 91 P.3d 683 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004)

Taylor v. Inch, No. 09-3083 (10th Cir. 9/1/09)

Hamburger v. Fry, 338 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1958)

Fairshter v. Stinky Love, Inc., No. 07-1424 (10th Cir. 12/23/08)

Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. of N.M. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 269 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (10th Cir. 2001).

U.S. v. Friday, No. No. 06-8093 (10th Cir. 5/8/08) ("I knew there was a conspiracy; I'll bet Thursday's in on it!)

Spanx, Inc. v. Sexy Panties and Naughty Knickers, No. 08-CV-1375 (N.D. Ga. 4/9/08)

Maybe Jody is more judicial than one might suppose, because sometimes even the courts cannot resist the temptation to comment on an interesting case title. For example, in Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, 815 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1987), the court commented at fn. 1:

"Thus, this most delightful of case names: Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children v. Playboy Enterprises; seriously rivaled, in our judgment, only by United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Article Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y.1941) (condemnation proceeding under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), and United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa.1971) (leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendants)."

The Mayo case is famous because the plaintiff sued Satan and his servants. "He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall." This was going to be a class action, but the court dismissed it because plaintiff failed to include instructions for service of process.

To round things out, Jody provides the following citation to a case that was unable to achieve membership in the list because the court wouldn't allow a name change:

Knox v. Bland, No. 10-7066 (10th Cir. 2/14/11) ("Antone L. Knox, an inmate at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, brings this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight Oklahoma state judges. His claims arise out of his unsuccessful attempts in state court to have his name changed for religious reasons to Ali Ishmael Mandingo Warrior Chief.")

I can't resist adding a few of my own:

United States v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef etc., 726 F.2d 1481

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008)

United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets, 689 F. Supp. 1106 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisconsin 1976).

Plough v. Fields, 422 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1970)

Silver v. Gold, 211 Cal. App. 3d 17, 259 Cal. Rptr. 185 (1989)

Death v. Graves, CGC-06-451316 (San Francisco Super. Ct., filed April 17, 2006)

United States v. Bad Marriage, 439 F.3d 534 (9th Cir. 2005)

Bug O'Buckets

Jackson v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 4:01cv00137E(J) (N.D. Okla. 11/9/01)

"On a hot, steamy evening on July 21, 1996, Plaintiff Richard Jackson was at his Tulsa home relaxing after a day of working in his own landscaping business known as “Yard Guard.” His wife Wanda had left to go play bingo around 5:00 p.m. and was not expected back right away. Around 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff had stripped naked and was reclining on top of his bed watching T.V., and drifting off to sleep. An electrical thunderstorm moved into the area.

"He awoke with a start around 9:00 p.m. to notice the T.V. and all lights had gone off. He got up from the bed and found a cigarette lighter. Plaintiff noticed his wife's “Bug O'Bucket” citronella candle sitting just inside the front door. Although he had traditional indoor candles and a flashlight in his house, Plaintiff chose to light the “Bug O' Bucket,” which according to the label, is intended for outdoor use only. With disregard for the contents of the label, Plaintiff carried the burning “Bug O'Bucket” candle through the house checking his circuit breaker boxes. He placed the bucket on the floor near the back door of his house and went outside, naked, in the rain to check an outdoor breaker box. He was not successful with the breakers and came back inside soaking wet. He carried the bucket back through the house and placed it near the front door, which was propped open. The electricity came back on. The power had been out only 15-20 minutes.

"Plaintiff grabbed a towel to dry himself off and leaned over the bucket on the floor to snuff out the flame with his fingers. Plaintiff claims when he leaned over, water either dripped off his body or the towel and into the bucket. He then claims an explosion of hot wax erupted over his torso and genitals. He further claims his wife came home right at that moment to find her naked husband lying backwards on his bed and in pain. She attended to his bums, and extinguished the candle by simply blowing it out.

"Plaintiff went to the doctor the next day and was placed on a 10-day regiment of outpatient treatment at the burn unit. Plaintiff claims he sustained permanent scarring and numbness to the tip of his penis. He also claims he has a diminished desire for sexual relations with his wife, compared to before. He further claims the explosion of hot wax caused damages to his hardwood floors and ceiling."

Plaintiff sued Candle corp., which manufactured "Bug O'Bucket." There was no proof the product was defective. The case was dismissed. The moral of the story is simple. Don't go around naked carrying a bucket of hot wax in a thunderstorm, but if you have to, don't stand over it and drip.

Breakfast Trickery

Sugawara v. Pepsico, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43127 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Plaintiff filed a class action for fraud against the manufacturer of "Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries Cereal" because there was no fruit in the cereal.

"In addition to the use of the word "berries" in the Product name, the Product's principal display panel ("PDP"), the portion of the Product box designed to face consumers as they shop in a market aisle, features the Product's namesake, "Cap'n Crunch" thrusting a spoonful of "Crunchberries" at the prospective buyer.

"The Crunchberries are pieces of cereal in bright fruit colors, shaped to resemble berries. While close inspection reveals that the Crunchberries on the PDP are not really berries, Plaintiff contends that the colorful Crunchberries, combined with use of the word "berry" in the Product name, convey the message that Cap'n Crunch is not all sugar and starch, but contains redeeming fruit. This message is allegedly supplemented and reinforced by additional marketing that represents that "Crunch Berries is a combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries."

The case was easy decide, because the court just didn't believe plaintiff had been deceived:

"In actuality, the Product contains no berries of any kind. If the consumer takes the box from the shelf and examines the fine print of the ingredient list, he or she will discover that the only fruit content is a touch of strawberry fruit concentrate, twelfth in order on the ingredient list."

In dismissing the case, the Court noted that "while the challenged packaging contains the word "berries" it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term "crunch." This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a "crunchberry." Furthermore, the "Crunchberries" depicted on the PDP are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the PDP clearly states both that the Product contains "sweetened corn & oat cereal" and that the cereal is "enlarged to show texture." Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist."

The court also said that "The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen."

Shocking and Electrifying

Williamson v. Haynes Best Western, 688 So.2d 1201 (La. App. 1997)

Sonya Williamson claimed she was electrocuted while attempting to turn off the light in her hotel room at the Haynes Best Western Hotel, where she was living with her family. This incident, according to Sonya, caused her to be a quadriplegic.

The court didn't believe it. For one thing, Sonya had no burns on her body and no entrance or exit wound. Several witnesses saw Sonya strolling around after the alleged incident and driving various vehicles. A housekeeper said that Sonya was sitting in the lobby watching television the day after the alleged accident. Sonya's sister talked to her after the "electrocution" and did not detect anything abnormal. Sonya did not mention the electrocution accident.

The Williamsons had a history of 48 suspicious claims. In one of these incidents, Sonya and the family maid (who was also, from time to time, alleged to be a “roustabout” for the family business) were allegedly shocked in an unwitnessed accident when a CB antenna contacted an overhead power line. Sonya developed quadriplegic symptoms similar to those observed after the incident that was the subject of this litigation.

It seems that when the family was low on cash, one of them would fall down the stairs, fall off a horse, be run down by a horse, run the car off the road, fall in to a hole, or get electrocuted. Insurance claims followed these incidents. Williamson's mother had a similar electrocution earlier. The accidents were apparently staged, with different family members playing different roles as victim, driver, etc. To keep these complicated electrical facts straight, the Court dubbed the incidents "Electrocution I," "Electrocution II," and "Electrocution III."

The jury found that the incident was fraudulent or staged and rendered a verdict for the hotel.

Flyspeckin'

Hyperphase Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp, No. 02-C-647-C (W.D. Wis. July 1, 2003)

Court rules permit electronic documents to be e-filed until midnight on the due date. Microsoft electronically filed a motion at 12:04:27 AM (4 minutes and 27 seconds late). The opposing party Hyperphase Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to strike the motion as untimely. The court entered the following order:

"In a scandalous affront to this court's deadlines, Microsoft did not file its summary judgment motion until 12:04:27 a.m .... I don't know this personally because I was home sleeping, but that's what the court's computer docketing program says, so I'll accept it as true.

"Microsoft's insouciance so flustered Hyperphase that nine of its attorneys [names omitted] promptly filed a motion to strike .... Counsel used bolded italics to make their point, a clear sign of grievous inequity by one's foe. True, this court did enter an order ... ordering the parties not to flyspeck each other, but how could such an order apply to a motion filed almost five minutes later? Microsoft's temerity was nothing short of a frontal assault on the precept of punctuality so cherished by and vital to this court.

"Wounded though this court may be by Microsoft's four minute and twenty-seven second dereliction in duty, it will transcend the affront and forgive the tardiness. Indeed, to demonstrate the evenhandedness of its magnanimity, the court will allow Hyperphase on some future occasion in this case to efile a motion four minutes and thirty seconds late ...."

About This Blog

If you've ever had to deal with lawyers, you know that many are stuffy. That's putting it mildly. Who uses "wherefore," "heretofore," "whereas" and "res ipsa loquitur" in normal conversations? But Lawyers are veritable cut-ups compared to the courts. Courts and judges are so solemn that facial expressions by trial participants are sometimes expressly banned from the courtroom. That means you could go to jail for smiling.

Exceptions exist, and that's what this blog is about.

I'm retired and not reading as many cases as I did once upon a time. I may keep this going, but probably not, as my interests have changed since this was written 13 years ago.