dicta \ 'dik-te \ n. [L. fr. neut. of dictus, ptp. of dicere] (1599) 1: a noteworthy statement: as a: a formal pronouncement of a principle, proposition, or opinion b: an observation intended or regarded as authoritative 2: a judicial opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case 3: a legendary coach of the Chicago Bears football team from 1982-1992. 
On several different ocassions, I have noted some of the funniest case names ever. I thought I had reached the limits of awesomeness with some of these other entries. I was WRONG. Mea culpa! This is the greatest case name ever:
United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F. Supp. 208 (W D.N.Y. 1941) (holding product was misbranded because it was not in fact a cure or treatment for drunkenness).*
*Remember, I have neither the time nor the energy to make s*&^ like this up.
I am now on a mission from God. By the time my academic career is over, I must find a legitimate reason to cite this bad boy. This case name must live on forever.
Once again, the good folks over at Lowering the Bar deserve all the credit for finding this gem. Simply outstanding!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Greatest. Case. Name. Ever.
23 comments:
Seen in my Legislation book:
State of New Jersey v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am
Game, set, match.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Which is, of course, the case under which states used to be able to outlaw sodomy. Go back and read the name again.
United States v. Approximately 64695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008)
is that really better than
U. S. v. 43 1/2 Gross Rubber Prophylactics Labeled in Part ""Xcello's Prophylactics"", 65 F.Supp. 534, 536 (D.Minn. Feb 11, 1946)
United States v. Bad Marriage, 439 F.3d 534 (9th Cir. 2005). Involving -- what else? -- alcohol and domestic abuse!
Ariola v. Nigro, 16 Ill. 2d 46 (1959)
I still love Loving v. Virginia for allowed interracial marriages - how can you beat Mr. and Mr. Loving standing up for true love? awesome. But the prophylactics one RULES.
I still like:
Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
One of my favorites, so much so, that I have kept a copy of it in my files years after a colleague found it: 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. Wisc. 1976).
Also, we used to play a game finding the best name of an opposing lawyer. The runaway winner was the in-house lawyer for the American Psychological Assn named Dort Bigg.
Of course, who could forget United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Penn. 1971). It was dismissed for, what else, failure to obtain personal jurisdiction.
Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958) - Opinion delivered by Justice Frankfurter
From the case:
Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults of Louisiana Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, 815 F.2d 323 (5th Cir 1987):
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)."
I've always liked Brain v. Mann , 129 Wis.2d 447, 455, 385 N.W.2d 227, 231 (1986).
Cummer v. Butts, 40 Mich. 322 (Mich. 1879).
In Civ Pro 2, we discussed the case Klaxon v. Stentnor, 313 U.S. 487 (1941).
While I wasn't looking, my neighbor drew pictures of the parties, respectively.
Klaxon was a giant lizard and Stentnor was a giant anthropomorphized big rig.
The sketches so perfectly represented what super villains "Klaxon" and "Stentnor" might look like that I laughed loudly and embarrassed myself.
For those of you who are in Los Angeles - Pico v. Sepulveda, 66 Cal. 336 (1885)
(That's also the name of an intersection in West Los Anegeles)
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006)
7 Fifths Old Grand-Dad Whiskey v. United States, 330 U.S. 828
United States v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, 448 F.3d 1168
Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc., 62 Cal. App. 3d 389
Homo v. Cox, 21 F.3d 422
Tutorship of Booty, 667 So.2d 526
Claim of Hardon, 574 N.Y.S.2d 422
Woodbury v. Manlove, 14 Ill. 212
United States v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, etc., 726 F.2d 1481
Boner v. Cockrell, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17716
Boner's Administatrix v. Chestnut's Executor, 317 S.W.2d 867
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ninety-Five_Barrels_Alleged_Apple_Cider_Vinegar
State v. Limberhand, 117 Idaho 456, 788 P.2d 857 (1990). What the defendant was doing makes this a classic case name.
United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2003). Note that the parenthetical "one moon rock" is in the official case name, not added by me.
Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 810 F.2d 104, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 2007 (6th Cir. 1987)
From the case name you can figure out the parties, the cause of action, and who won.
Post a Comment