Legal scholarship: crayons, a tree, and the self

From the Lowering the Bar blog’s collection of legal cases worth pondering, if not studying [that’s our description, not necessarily Lowering the Bar‘s, though not necessarily not, either]:

Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2001) (“Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact . . . to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.”).

Bruni v. Bruni (Ontario Super. Ct. 2010) (“Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment . . . . I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.”)

Collins v. Henman (S.D. Ill. 1987) (dismissing case because, even accepting petitioner’s claim that he was the Prophet Muhammed, he was still required to exhaust remedies in state court before filing federal habeas action).

Denny v. Radar Industries (Mich. Ct. App. 1971) (“Appellant [tried to distinguish his case.] He didn’t.  We couldn’t.  Affirmed.”)

Fisher v. Lowe (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (“We thought that we would never see/A suit to compensate a tree”).  Bonus points: Westlaw did the summary and headnotes in verse, too.

Lodi v. Lodi (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (“This case started when plaintiff Oreste Lodi sued himself in the Shasta County Superior Court.”).

Improbable Research