Law school can seem scary. And boring. And hard. And when you realize you not only willingly entered this scary, boring, hard institution, but you forked over a whole lot of money to do so, you might begin to ask yourself, “What in the world is the matter with me?” So, for all you 1Ls who have just started or who are about to start, I just want to let you know that mixed in with the all the serious, dry information you are going to read, which may or may not be useful in your future careers, there are some weird, ridiculous cases you will study that are going to offer you some much needed comic relief.

To prove my point, I am going to tell you about some of the more fun cases that stood out so much that I still remember them this long after I graduated. Not only that, but I managed to wade through my murky memory to come up with a case from five of the basic 1L courses…yes, even contracts. I’ll give you plots, but I’m not giving away endings here. There are no spoiler alerts — I don’t want any angry professors coming after me because students weren’t coming to class since I already taught them everything they needed to know.

The Haunted Property

In Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.,2d 254, we learn that, yes, ghosts are real…or, well, at least, that a house can be legally haunted. This all began when Jeffrey Stambovsky tried to buy a house from Helen Ackley. Well, I guess it really started before he tried to buy a house from Helen Ackley. Like, say, when she started advertising the house as haunted. And I’m not talking about that one time she told a friend over coffee, I’m talking about real press advertising. That’s right, she put her ghost story in print — in both the local paper and in Reader’s Digest. She did not, however, tell the ghost story in the description of the house, or in the contract, or in any verbal communications that she or her realtor had with Mr. Stanbovsky.  And let me tell you, when Stanbovsky found out he had just purchased a bunch of poltergeists, he was less than pleased. In fact, he was so mad he wanted to get out of the contract (so see, really you’re getting two entertaining contract stories here).

Courtesy of tumblr.

Of course, Ms. Ackley tried say the ghosts had moved out — or didn’t exist — or were just a figment of her imagination. In other words, she was all like, “Are you crazy? Of course this house isn’t haunted! Where ever did you come up with such an idea?” (not a direct quote). But the court disagreed. They basically told her, “You can’t go around telling the press you’ve got a ghost, and then all of a sudden claim you don’t just to make a sale. You’ve got a haunted house, so don’t try to deny it.” (Again, not a direct quote.) But here is a direct quote for you: “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted.” Weird, right? But, does the fact that the house is haunted mean that Ackley was required to disclose this?

Moral Contracts

There is nothing worse than having a family member promise you something only to have him later say, “Haha, sucker, April Fool’s.” In the pivotal case of Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, William E. Story II found this out the hard way. William E. Story the original, and also the uncle of II, told his nephew that all he had to do to get $5,000 (which is basically a whole lot of money seeing as how this case is really old) was to keep away from tobacco, alcohol, swearing, and playing billiards and cards for money — so basically don’t have fun — until he turned 21.

II really wanted that money, so he accepted and completed the challenge. When he turned 21, he asked for his money and was told the uncle wanted to hold onto it until the nephew was a little older, but he would get it with interest. So the uncle held onto it and held onto it until eventually he died still holding onto it. II transferred his interest to his wife who transferred her interest to someone else who said to the estate something like, “Hey, where’s my money?” They answered by basically saying, “What? You thought that was a real contract? Hahahahahaha…” with the laughter continuing for a while. This, of course, led to the interest holder going to court. But of course I’m not telling you the result of the court case here.

It’s Raining Cows and Torts

Whenever I am having a bad day, I just say “Well, at least a cow hasn’t fallen on my head today.” Because, let’s be honest, nothing that happened to me is as bad as that. On April 15, 1954 Fannie Guthrie could legitimately claim that she had a bad day because she couldn’t say that a cow hadn’t fallen on her head. In Guthrie v. Powell, 178 Kan. 589, Torts students learn about a fun little legal term: res ipsa loquitur. I’m not going to go into the legalese of that, but what I will tell you is this: if someone is on the first floor of a building where a public sale is taking place, has permission to be there, and is just generally minding her own business when unexpectedly (because there is no way to expect this) a six-hundred pound steer located on the second floor falls through the ceiling and lands on said someone, that person likely will sue using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

I told my sister about this case, and she asked me a very logical question, one that most people would ask when hearing about a steer landing on a lady: “Oh no! Was the steer hurt?”

Courtesy of gifsoup.

Is Sexual Healing a Criminal (Law) Offense?

Since you all are going to law school, and not medical school, you may not yet know the following wisdom I am about to impart on you: if a “doctor” calls you out of the blue and tells you that you have a fatal disease that can only be cured by an expensive, painful surgery or by having sex with a donor inoculated with the vaccine, do not go have sex with that donor. There is actually no disease for which this is a recognized cure, I’m sorry to tell you. Unfortunately for Ms. R, she did not have me to guide her, and so she, not being a doctor and not being insured, felt she had no choice but to pay this donor to inject her. Turns out, this was all a fraud, so she called rape. But did the judge rule in her favor? Find out in Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1224.

Satan, Standing, and Civil Procedures

Satan and his staff are all pretty evil. So, it should be a safe bet to say that if you sue the devil, you are going to win (in court — I’m not speculating on what will happen to you when he gets you out from underneath the long arm of the law). However, in order to sue him, you have to be able to find him, because how else are you going to serve him his papers? Short of sending a poor clerk to the pits of hell, what should be done to make Satan pay for his crimes? Well, you can find out how to sue Satan in United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282, where Mayo claimed that the devil had, among other things, deprived him of some constitutional rights. (Or you can find out that you can’t sue Satan because of the very fact that they couldn’t serve process on Satan, but since I promised no spoilers, I won’t tell you which happened here.)

Courtesy of GIPHY.

So see? Law school isn’t always daunting and scary. Unless, of course, you’re scared of Satan, ghosts, and flying cows.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird, True, and Freaky: Law School Edition appeared first on Law Street.

This week Law Street broke the story of the FBI’s latest violent crime data — if you haven’t checked it out yet you definitely should. This week, though, I want to talk about crimes of defamation, because though they are rarely discussed, they have similar ability to do serious harm to a person’s life. These are caused by careless, negligent, and often malicious words of one person against another. Some of these people are just talking to hear their own voices, and some are liars — there is a special place in hell for liars.

Crimes of defamation are rarely talked about on a large scale because, really, how do you quantify them?  Where do we draw the line between “Freedom of speech” and “defamatory content?” The area between the two is gray, but the laws exist to determine what is casual conversation and what is illegal.

The Supreme Court defines defamation as a four-element offense, which requires:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity;
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence;  and,
4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. 
   

Some states, like New York, take these federal guidelines a step further and determine various rules for defamation depending on the person being defamed. The first category is for “private” people — a group into which most of us fall. Private people are more broadly protected. If you negligently say something that is defamatory against me, and the above four elements are met, you’ve broken the law. It’s that simple!

New York also has two other classes: public official and public figure. President Barack Obama is a public official; Kim Kardashian is a public figure. (Get the difference?) These people have taken steps to thrust themselves into the public consciousness, and with widespread notoriety comes widespread ridicule and judgment. I believe the legal term is “Mo Money, Mo Problems.”

When dealing with Kim Kardashian, President Obama, or any other public person, New York mandates that a fifth requirement must be met: the defamatory speech must be malicious. Malice requires a specific intent to cause harm to a person — it’s a tougher hurdle to jump, but the rewards are much greater. When a U.K. newspaper claimed that Liberace was gay in the late 50s, he sued it for defamation and libel and was awarded a large amount of money. Tom Cruise won a similar suit, and let’s not forget when Lindsay Lohan tried to sue E-Trade for their drunk baby named “Lindsay.”

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The law says that truth is an affirmative defense to any claim of defamation. That is, if the defamatory statement is based on a true story, the speech is within the bounds of the law. This makes sense, right?  If you are a known thief, and someone tells their best friend that you steal, that is totally okay.

What’s not okay is when the defamation occurs and is based on untrue information. The law recognizes that the power of words and one’s reputation can carry a person very far, and does its best to protect an otherwise innocent person from being victimized by lies and rumors.

The point of these defamation laws is to combat that victimization. Because of these laws, an unfairly accused or viciously maligned person can stand firm in her innocence or his correct assertion. An easy way to do this is to have an adjudicatory decision in your favor, i.e. you’ve gone to court and won. In other words, proof is of paramount importance when attempting to bolster one’s argument in a defamation case.

“Show Me the Receipts!”

There are various ways to determine if something is true or false, and one of the easiest ways to make that determination is to review the record. Courts and triers of fact rely on hundreds of thousands, likely even millions, of pages of documents annually in order to parse out the truth from all of malarky. That is why law schools across the country focus on organization, meticulous record keeping, and the importance of creating a paper trail. It’s why we create elaborate filing systems, why every document is backed up, and why everything is committed to writing. The quickest way to piss off a lawyer is to make an assertion without substantiating evidence.

50 Cent, the Poet Laureate of the early 2000s, put it best when he said, “I talk a lot of shit, but I can back it up.”

The moral of the story is that crime is a problem, but we need to broaden the discussion. All criminal activity is reprehensible, and when the law is broken there need to be consequences. The law exists so that criminals don’t do whatever they want to do, and the same preclusions apply with words.

And if all else fails, don’t lie.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Angie Linder/Christina via Flickr]

The blog that feeds my insatiable hunger for “RHONJ” .gifs: RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liar, Liar Pants on Fire appeared first on Law Street.