STANDOUT CASES

[J D]

Leonard v. Pepsico (the Harrier Jet case)

That's a great one!

According to my Contracts professor, Lucas v. Hamm (CA Supreme Court: "Y'know, this Rule Against Perpetuities sh!t is just too damned hard for it to be malpractice if the lawyer messes it up") is considered a kind of "inside joke" among lawyers.

[phosita]

One of my T.A.s sent this quote out.

On the evening of May 29, 2003, Hayden was smoking crack with three other folks at a trailer park home on Chain of Rocks Road in Granite City, Illinois. Murphy, Sr., who had sold drugs to Hayden several years earlier, showed up later that night. He was friendly at first, but he soon called Hayden a "snitch female dog hoe" ⁿ¹ and hit her in the head with the back of his hand.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


n1 The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch female dog "hoe." A "hoe," of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden's response. We have taken the liberty of changing "hoe" to "ho," a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps "You doin' ho activities with ho tendencies."

[Highway]

I also liked the one about the guy who sued Satan for interfering with his right in the pursuit of happiness.

The court dismissed the case because they weren't sure they would have jurisdiction over a foreign prince like Satan and, at any rate, the plaintiff had not provided a valid address where they could serve proper notice to Satan.

[bella112]

lol

[Italian2L]

The Crim Law rape case where the Doctor convinces his patient that she has some fatal disease that can only be cured by this medicine that has to be vaginally inserted and that the only tool that could be used to properly insert it was his penis. If I remember correctly the guy got away with it because the fraud was in the inducement of sex, not the act itself. The court explained this by distinguishing it from a case where another Doctor had told a patient to turn around so he could insert some inanimate medical device into her, but the only device he inserted was himself. The difference being that the woman did not actually consent to the act of sex itself.

...The best part of the whole experience was that as we left the classroom and while everybody was talking about how funny the case was the janitor's radio was playing "sexual healing" pretty loudly. True story.

[CamField]

Walter v. Wal-Mart - The classic P.I. lawyer's dream case.

Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. - The beginning of zoning as we know it today.

[CamField]

Almost forgot.

Tinker v. Des Moines Community School Board - famous case dealing with student's First Amendment rights. "students do not shed their Constitutional right to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate." Justice Fortas

[eray01]

This is excellent advice, so definitely read the whole post. Or not. Whatever.

This is the #1 standout case from my first year, and it wasn't even in the casebook. In fact, this is such a helpful case, you should definitely not share it with any of your classmates.

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor co., 374 F.3d 797

When you deal with personal jurisdiction in civil procedure, which is always a challenge for most first year students, do yourself a favor and remember to look at this case. It won't be in your casebook, so retrieve it yourself. If you read no other case for personal jurisdiction, at least read this one. Relying on this case is definitely one of my top five first year tips.

This case is a template for a personal jurisdiction analysis. The court carefully and thoroughly walks through every step. A major issue on our exam was personal jurisdiction. I used this case almost fill in the blank style on the exam, and I got an A. I really didn't even understand personal jurisdiction going into the exam. I just hope your exam is open book like mine was.

On a side note, and I may get argued with on this advice, but don't labor over Pennoyer v. Neff very long. It's probably the first case you'll read for personal jurisdiction, and at its one of the most confusing. The bottom line is it's no longer good law, and other cases like Worldwide Volkswagen will be more relevant. The way our professor approached personal jurisdiction was to walk us through the entire development of the law in that area. In hindsight it was a major waste of time. In the end, the Schwarzenegger case gave me everything I needed, and it relies on the most current law.

The funny thing is, now that I've had some real world experience, I've found out personal jurisdiction is rarely an issue in most cases. Unless, of course, you're suing Satan. But, I would bet he has minimum contacts in most states.

[jippyjappa]

"On a side note, and I may get argued with on this advice, but don't labor over Pennoyer v. Neff very long. It's probably the first case you'll read for personal jurisdiction, and at its one of the most confusing. The bottom line is it's no longer good law, and other cases like Worldwide Volkswagen will be more relevant."

No argument here. Every year (all two of them), I have seen first years tearing out their hair over this case. However, I doubt if you will need it for your exam and it'll make more sense after reading the modern cases anyway. So yeah, don't stress over it.

[J D]

"On a side note, and I may get argued with on this advice, but don't labor over Pennoyer v. Neff very long. It's probably the first case you'll read for personal jurisdiction, and at its one of the most confusing. The bottom line is it's no longer good law, and other cases like Worldwide Volkswagen will be more relevant."

No argument here. Every year (all two of them), I have seen first years tearing out their hair over this case. However, I doubt if you will need it for your exam and it'll make more sense after reading the modern cases anyway. So yeah, don't stress over it.

In our class, we were only assigned an excerpt from it, and our prof basically explained its significance in plain English.  It's a notoriously difficult case, and I agree that you should focus on the modern cases more, since that's what will be tested.  The only thing really to remember about Pennoyer is it's current status as good law: it's no longer good law for the proposition that the ONLY way to get jurisdiction over someone is to have them consent to it or to serve process on them within the forum state's borders.  These are no longer the ONLY ways to do it, but they are still valid means of getting personal jurisdiction over the defendant (See Burnham v. Superior Court); there are other means now, too, like specific jurisdiction or minimum contacts, and general jurisdiction.