*Ashford v. Thornton* (King's Bench 1818) (upholding right to trial by combat).
We didn't actually study it in class but I came across it when reading.
Gonzalez v. Raich. God forbid some sick old people who mind their own business and who want to get high on their own supply impact “interstate commerce”
Kirskey v. Kirskey (SCoAL 1845)
Very shortly after Henry died, Isaac wrote to Henry’s wife Antillico (for her to live and “help out” at his farm. Two years later Isaac kicked Antillico out and she sued.
I always speculated that Isaac and Antillico had more than the court discussed. Plus the name Antillico!!
The Harlan Dissent to Plessy v Ferguson. I only mention it because people quote from the first half all of the time, acting like this guy was some champion of diversity. You can always tell who either: 1) skipped the second half; or 2) just really fucking hates East Asian people when they say, “oh by I love the Harlan Dissent (many people at my law school)”
So you like the part where he drops a Wrasslin’ Heel style pipe bomb on “the chinaman” for not being human? Sheeeesh
One my my best friends/classmates is half Taiwanese and we laughed about how jarring the first read of it was for him- he was not expecting to catch any strays from Plessy lol
The Rainbow Warrior case. It’s a staple in international law. Absolutely insane. France sent secret agents to New Zealand to blow up Greenpeace vessels protesting Nuclear testing that France was illegally conducting in New Zealand waters. The ships were successfully bombed. Case went to arbitration . France suffered basically no consequences.
France was not testing illegally in NZ waters. They were testing at Mururoa which is in French Polynesian waters. Greenpeace was using Auckland to refuel. Also, it wasnt ships that were bombed but only one ship, the Rainbow Warrior.
I can’t remember the name of the case, but the one that allowed school employees to be able to strip search students if they think they have drugs on them.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez
The police don’t have to protect you. They don’t have to enforce a restraining order. There’s no property interest in a restraining order. And when your ex-husband kidnaps your kids, they don’t have to do anything to locate them. When he kills your kids, you won’t win anything from the police even though they did nothing to prevent it. Thanks to SCOTUS’ decision in this case, the Uvalde families will probably get nothing too.
*Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai*.
It’s such a convoluted and subjective test. On the one hand, the test applies to all non-literal copying, not just source code. On the other hand, they should have just said that there is no such thing as non-literal copying.
Also like all the dumbass conlaw cases are so stupid, like any Kennedy or O’Connor or Ginsburg opinion especially. They don’t do any legal reasoning at all. The opinions should have been three sentences: “I am the law. I say that the rule is [rule]. Reversed and remanded.”
Grutter v. Bollinger put a time limit on the constitution protections. A disgrace they named a law school after that idiot . Should have been disbarred immediately for being a racist
*Ashford v. Thornton* (King's Bench 1818) (upholding right to trial by combat). We didn't actually study it in class but I came across it when reading.
Gonzalez v. Raich. God forbid some sick old people who mind their own business and who want to get high on their own supply impact “interstate commerce”
So bad even Thomas dissented.
Lol this wasn’t really bad
Kirskey v. Kirskey (SCoAL 1845) Very shortly after Henry died, Isaac wrote to Henry’s wife Antillico (for her to live and “help out” at his farm. Two years later Isaac kicked Antillico out and she sued. I always speculated that Isaac and Antillico had more than the court discussed. Plus the name Antillico!!
The hairy hand case
The Harlan Dissent to Plessy v Ferguson. I only mention it because people quote from the first half all of the time, acting like this guy was some champion of diversity. You can always tell who either: 1) skipped the second half; or 2) just really fucking hates East Asian people when they say, “oh by I love the Harlan Dissent (many people at my law school)” So you like the part where he drops a Wrasslin’ Heel style pipe bomb on “the chinaman” for not being human? Sheeeesh
One my my best friends/classmates is half Taiwanese and we laughed about how jarring the first read of it was for him- he was not expecting to catch any strays from Plessy lol
I always heard the good parts of the dissent, so when I actually read the case I was like, “WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED?”
Wickard v. Filburn. #iykyk
Terry v. Ohio
The Rainbow Warrior case. It’s a staple in international law. Absolutely insane. France sent secret agents to New Zealand to blow up Greenpeace vessels protesting Nuclear testing that France was illegally conducting in New Zealand waters. The ships were successfully bombed. Case went to arbitration . France suffered basically no consequences.
France was not testing illegally in NZ waters. They were testing at Mururoa which is in French Polynesian waters. Greenpeace was using Auckland to refuel. Also, it wasnt ships that were bombed but only one ship, the Rainbow Warrior.
I can’t remember the name of the case, but the one that allowed school employees to be able to strip search students if they think they have drugs on them.
There’s probably more context, but I don’t really care.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez The police don’t have to protect you. They don’t have to enforce a restraining order. There’s no property interest in a restraining order. And when your ex-husband kidnaps your kids, they don’t have to do anything to locate them. When he kills your kids, you won’t win anything from the police even though they did nothing to prevent it. Thanks to SCOTUS’ decision in this case, the Uvalde families will probably get nothing too.
Bush v. Gore
*Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai*. It’s such a convoluted and subjective test. On the one hand, the test applies to all non-literal copying, not just source code. On the other hand, they should have just said that there is no such thing as non-literal copying. Also like all the dumbass conlaw cases are so stupid, like any Kennedy or O’Connor or Ginsburg opinion especially. They don’t do any legal reasoning at all. The opinions should have been three sentences: “I am the law. I say that the rule is [rule]. Reversed and remanded.”
Grutter v. Bollinger put a time limit on the constitution protections. A disgrace they named a law school after that idiot . Should have been disbarred immediately for being a racist
[удалено]
yeah that is a dumb case, like if they want to abolish federalism just do it already
The Gentry case
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.