Articles Posted in Odd Cases

Throughout the years since our nation’s inception, the American courtroom has been the stage for some rather formidable legal battles. Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, and Bush v. Gore come to mind. Sometimes, however, it is highly unlikely that some of the biggest match-ups ever make it to the Law School curriculum. Such is the case of a recent Seventh Circuit decision (remember, these Judges are just below the Supreme Court) between two competing individuals: Pull My Finger® Fred and Fartman.

As described by Circuit Judge Wood, Fred “is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants.”

In contrast, Fartman “is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants.” Did I say “In contrast”? My mistake…

Although there are usually two sides to every story, in this case, both are a little whacky. There is no dispute that Mr. Fulmer shot Mr. Penny, who suffered a fractured femur, and a broken nose and cheek. Penny had scratches on his neck, torso, face and hands.

The shooting took place in Fulmer’s house. Here is Penny’s version:

Appearing jealous over the affection the cat was showing Penny, Fulmer attacked him and then shot him.

Here’s Fulmer’s version:

Because Penny was mistreating Napolean (the cat!) and acting strangely, Fulmer asked Penny to leave. Penny then tackled him, and while they fought for the gun, it went off, hitting Penny in the leg. He was just defending himself and his pregnant wife against the “drunken and aggressive” Penny. [Penny was legally intoxicated.]

The trial in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court took 4 days. So what do you think the jury decided?

Continue reading →

This feels like an “only in New York” story. The Taubs hate each other. (Simon Taub built a wall dividing their townhouse in 2 to keep them apart.) Two years ago, Chana Taub filed for divorce, alleging that Simon subjected her to cruel and inhuman treatment. (Does it surprise you that Simon is described as a “millionaire sweater mogul?”) She asked that a jury decide the case, thinking that they would give her a better shake than a judge. BIG MISTAKE, Chana. The 10-day trial – which included allegations that Simon attacked her with a telephone and a treadmill [?!], and testimony from all four kids against Simon – just ended.

Simon won! The judge dismissed the case. (New York does not have a “no-fault” divorce law, resulting in cases just like the Taubs, who now must remain married.)

On the very night of the jury’s decision, Chana tried to serve Simon with a protective order. She claims that, when she was trying to do so, Simon punched her in the eye. Not to be outdone, the day after the divorce case was dismissed, Simon went to court to get an order of protection against Chana! Oh, and they each think that the other is going to murder them. I can tell you 2 people who will make sure that won’t happen – their divorce lawyers, who are getting mighty fat from this case!

Willie Cheatham (his real name!) found himself out with his girlfriend, and out of cash. So he called his father about borrowing some money, then took a cab to his house. Per the court:

When he arrived, the men began arguing about the defendant’s habit of borrowing money and about his girlfriend, whom the elder Cheatham called a ‘slut’ and a ‘whore.’

Very, very bad move by the elder Cheatham.

Several minutes later, the defendant [Willie Cheatham] took a knife from the kitchen and proceeded into his father’s bedroom, where he stabbed his father sixty-eight times with two different knives. Also, at some point, the defendant hit his father with a glass vase, fracturing his skull. The defendant took $78.00 from his father before taking a taxi back to the bar where his girlfriend was waiting.

So what do you think happened to Willie?

Continue reading →

Just ask Lennart Widahr, who secretly lived (through two marriages) as a transvestite. He applied to the Swedish National Tax Board (yes, the Skatteverket) to change his name to “Pia.” Oh no they didn’t! That liberal, welfare state? They shot him down. The only way he can change his name to a female name, per the court, is to have a sex change operation. Damn! So they’re encouraging a sex change operation over a name change? Good thing Sweden is not a world power. (Please, Swedes, don’t go nuts with the e-mails.)

You know that Pia (hey, I’m not bound by the Skatteverket, not that I’m encouraging Mr. Widahr to skirt the law) appealed the decision. And he lost.

A court in Australia has ruled that three children will share in the estate of their sperm donor father. It turns out that the man they thought was their father was infertile. When he died, their mother told them the truth, including the identity of their biological father, Mr. Wijma. When he recently died, the three children claimed a share of his estate, and won, much to the dismay of Mr. Wijma’s two children from his earlier marriage. Oh, and just how did the kids prove Mr. Wijma was their dad? Their solicitor (lawyer) plucked an eyebrow [for DNA testing] from Mr. Wijma while he was in the hospital! For more details, read this article.

So it’s 1978, and two women meet in California and fall in love. They move to New York, where they live together for a number of years. Since they are not allowed to marry in New York, in 1991, they go to Maine, where Ms. Watson, the IBM heiress, legally adopts Ms. Spado, her lover.

Ms. Watson’s parents died in 1993 and 1994, leaving trusts (being administered in Connecticut) – for their grandchildren. As a grandchild, Ms. Spado asked the trustees for her share. The trustees said #&%$@!, and %*$#@%@!, then asked the court in Connecticut to declare that Ms. Spado was not entitled to share in the trusts. The Connecticut court agreed. Ms. Spado has appealed that decision.

Meanwhile, in Maine, the trustees asked that the entire adoption be declared invalid. The court agreed. But when Ms. Spado appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, they sent the case back (in January 2007) … to the same Judge who originally granted the adoption!

It’s 1944 in New Jersey. Louisa Strittmater died, with some money, or you wouldn’t be reading this. In her Will, she left her entire estate to ……. the National Women’s Party. Mercy! This did not sit well with her cousins (whom she saw very little during the last few years of her life), but who nevertheless said she was crazy, and asked the court to set the Will aside and give them the money. They lost Round 1, then appealed the decision. Per the appellate court:

The deceased never married. Born in 1896, she lived with her parents until their death about 1928, and seems to have had a normal childhood. She was devoted to both her parents and they to her. Her admiration and love of her parents persisted after their death to 1934, at least. Yet four years later she wrote: ‘My father was a corrupt, vicious, and unintelligent savage, a typical specimen of the majority of his sex. Blast his wormstinking carcass and his whole damn breed.’ And in 1943, she inscribed on a photograph of her mother ‘That Moronic she-devil that was my mother.’

Wormstinking carcass? Nice touch. So I’m thinking that maybe her parents were just jackasses? The court went on to say:

The master who heard the case in the court below, found that the proofs demonstrated ‘incontrovertably her morbid aversion to men’ and ‘feminism to a neurotic extreme.’ This characterization seems to me not strong enough. She regarded men as a class with an insane hatred. She looked forward to the day when women would bear children without the aid of men, and all males would be put to death at birth. Decedent’s inward life, disclosed by what she wrote, found an occasional outlet such as the incident of the smashing of the clock, the killing of the pet kitten, vile language, &c. On the other hand — and I suppose this is the split personality — Miss Strittmater, in her dealings with her lawyer, Mr. Semel, over a period of several years, and with her bank, to cite only two examples, was entirely reasonable and normal.

Dead male babies and kittens vs. reasonable and normal with her lawyer and others. What do you think the appellate court decided, sane feminist or crazy lady?

Continue reading →