bowlinger qua bowlinger

1. Where to take that pesky exam in July. This is a level of commitment that I’m just not ready for.

2. Where to go for an awesome trip after taking that pesky exam. This is much more fun and is entirely based on the idea that wealthier relatives might contribute to the funding (it worked for grad school). I’ve been thinking the Trans-Siberian railway, and then taking a passenger/cargo ferry from Vladivostok to Japan. Or taking the railway on its Trans-Mongolian route, from Moscow to Beijing.

3. Not watching The Office after this season is over. I’m really really annoyed about a lot of plot and character developments. Anyway, this seems minor, but I’m very engaged in American television.

4. How I can’t wait to eat at Chick-fil-A. I sometimes cry myself to sleep over this.

The Wisconsin supreme court denied cert in State v. Hathaway last Friday, August 1. It’s a real shame that the crummy appellate opinion (previously) is going to be allowed to stand.

Aquaslide-N-Dive went bankrupt, and the Grzybowskis followed them to court with their claim:

On or about July 14, 1984, David Grzybowski, appellant, was severely injured as a result of sliding down a slide into his swimming pool. It is alleged that the slide in question was manufactured by the debtor, Aquaslide. Neither the briefs nor excerpts of record describe the accident, except to say that he hit his head on the bottom of the pool and was rendered quadriplegic. On or about October 7, 1985, David M. and Marjorie Grzybowski filed a personal injury and products liability claim in Milwaukee County in the state of Wisconsin against numerous parties, one of whom was Aquaslide. It was asserted that Aquaslide was negligent and designed, manufactured and sold an unreasonably dangerous product. Prior to that date, Aquaslide had filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Grzybowski bought his slide in the spring of 1977 at the residential home of a man who had advertised his wares in the classified advertisements of Mr. Grzybowski’s local newspaper. The slide was in a box which Mr. Grzybowski had not saved. In his deposition, he testified that he thought the box said “Slide ‘N’ Dive.” He also testified that he can no longer find the home of the man from whom he purchased the slide.

The slide in question contained no identification, no serial number, no manufacturer’s name or other identifying marks which would designate a specific manufacturer. The Grzybowski’s filed a proof of claim against Aquaslide in the amount of $27,000,000. Carl Meyer, President of Aquaslide and designer of the Aquaslide Duke Curve Slide, inspected the slide in question and compared it in minute detail to the slide manufactured by Aquaslide. In his declaration he states unequivocably that Aquaslide did not design, manufacture, sell, or distribute the slide in question.

Aquaslide filed an objection to the allowance of the claim of the Grzybowskis contending that there was no basis in law or fact for the claim. After reading the affidavits submitted by the parties and deposition of Mr. Grzybowski, the court disallowed the claim. The Grzybowskis appealed.
In re Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp., 85 B.R. 545, 546 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Cal. 1987)

Bonus Audio!
collapse

Appellant transferred an automobile to appellee in exchange for her promise to pay him $100 and a specified number of sexual favors. In his complaint, appellant alleges breach of contract and asks for money damages. The justice of the peace court dismissed the action, ruling that the contract was illegal and unenforceable. The district court affirmed the dismissal. The issue is whether or not appellant is entitled to any relief under the contract.We will affirm.

The essence of the agreement between the parties was that appellant would transfer a 1970 Pontiac automobile to appellee in consideration for her paying $100 and additionally bestowing upon him 100 sexual favors. The agreement was in writing and undated. It contained some ambiguous and unfamiliar terms which were sufficiently clarified at trial. Appellant brought an action against appellee in the small claims court and in his complaint alleged breach of contract and demanded money damages.

The uncontroverted testimony at trial was that appellee had not paid the $100 and had only partially otherwise performed. The agreement provided that appellee would get the car when she had performed 50 sexual acts; however, for some reason not disclosed, there was a premature transfer of the automobile.

Hamburg v. Hansen, 683 P.2d 662 (Wyo. 1984)

Turns out that contracts like this are void for being against public policy. At least in Wyoming.

This lack of substantive distinction is more clearly seen in the light of the following hypothetical situation. Assuming, for instance, that an individual stops at a neighborhood tavern to purchase a six-pack of beer to take out and, while there, also decides to purchase a 12-ounce bottle of beer to drink at the bar. Under the provisions of the ordinance before us, when he receives his total bill, he will be charged no tax for the six cans of beer but will be required to pay 6 cents tax for the bottle of beer.

North Sheffield, Inc. v. Chicago, 144 Ill. App. 3d 913, 919-920 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1986)

So, there’s an update in the case of the two guys who wheeled their dead buddy down to the currency exchange in an office chair, hoping to cash his disability check. They’re going free!

The prosecutor acknowledged Tuesday that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt when the man actually died, making it difficult to bring a case against the men. Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Evelyn LaPorte agreed and dismissed the charges.

Also, Senate Bill 247 in Wisconsin failed to pass this year. Having sex with (human) corpses is still legal in Wisconsin, so long as you didn’t participate in the death.

SECTION 5. THE DEFENDANT’S “CON-
STITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED AC-
CESS TO EVIDENCE”

(in Kamisar’s Advanced Criminal Procedure, p 1270)

I apologize for my discontinuation of posts about food and the law. I will go back and update soon, especially what we had to eat. But right now I need some help! This week is the last meeting of food and the law, unless we can come up with some other topics for OB-S. I already sent him the Posner opinion about the horse meat, which he never responded to. What are some other food and the law issues? We’ve done taxing fat, tort liability, bio-engineered food, the problem with corn, and now we’re doing packaging and labeling. If you can  help suggest something and he agrees, I will try to get you into the meeting. Is that good incentive?

So, maybe you’re like me. You’re more of a night owl than an early riser, and maybe you’d like to work in a fast-paced courtroom environment where the cases are just not that serious and the judges are frustrated stage magicians. Maybe you’re also like me and you want to wear a cardigan and a knit tie to work every night. If so, I have a lead on where to apply for clerkships.

Here’s the National Center for State Courts’ list of night courts.

rougerouge on Flickr

Of interest is a recent appeals court decision in Wisconsin v. Hathaway. Here’s the opinion.

The appeals court ruled that by pleading out at the trial court level, he failed to preserve his appeal on the live/dead animal issue. I was worried about this kind of thing at the time, but a guilty plea was probably in the best interests of the defendant.

Read the rest of this entry »