Every so often there is material suitable for this column that is memorable only for one or two lines. It is therefore difficult to turn it into something that fills up all of the space allotted, and instead I turn it into a collection of smaller items -- somewhat like my two annual reviews.
• Speaking of the annual reviews -- there was a 2023 matter I overlooked that really should have been included. It involved a woman named Rosemary Hayne, who was dissatisfied with her burrito bowl at a Parma, Ohio Chipotle. Hayne complained to the store manager, Emily Russell, about something she disliked about the bowl. So Russell -- whose restaurant was short-staffed -- made and then re-made Hayne's order. Still unhappy, she slammed it on the counter, shouted a few choice words at Russell, and then threw the entire bowl of food in her face. (As Russell put it, "I just blinked and [then] there was sour cream dripping from my hair.")
Hayne was charged with assault, and Judge Timothy Gilligan was not amused by her behavior, sentencing her to 180 days in jail. But with a twist: she could avoid spending 60 of those days in jail if she instead worked 20 hours a week for eight and-a-half weeks (i.e., 60 days) at a fast-food restaurant. One person who was satisfied was the victim; Ms. Russell (who quit her job after the incident) said that "I thought she was going to get a slap on the wrist, but she didn't. She is going to get to walk in my shoes."
No word whether Hayne has actually found a restaurant that would hire her, however.
• The "Shortest Opinion in the West" Award (well, at least in Michigan) was undoubtedly a 1970 decision of Judge John Gillis (who also once wrote an opinion consisting entirely of a twelve-line poem written in the style of Joyce Kilmer's "Trees"). Gillis' opinion in that 1970 case, except for the citation of the case he mentioned, consisted of the following:
"The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc.. . . He didn't. We couldn't.
"Affirmed."
• Slightly lengthier was a 1949 decision involving, of all people, Groucho Marx. The Marx Brothers, of course, were not immune to using legal matters in their routines:
Chico, on the stand: "Now I ask you one. What is it has a trunk but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds, and lives in the circus?"
Groucho: "That's irrelevant."
Chico: "An relephant. Hey, that's the answer! There's a whole lotta relephants in the circus."
But one of Groucho's routines on the radio version of "You Bet Your Life" got him into real legal trouble. Groucho stated, "I once managed a prizefighter, Canvasback Cohen. I brought him out here, he got knocked out, and I made him walk back to Cleveland."
Well, it turned out that there was a real prizefighter named Sam Cohen. During his short and not-too-illustrious career, he went by the nickname of "Canvasback Cohen" (don't you just hate it when that happens?)
Canvasback, of course, should have known better than to get into the fight game with a nickname like "Canvasback." Have you ever heard of a sports team with a nickname like "the Mice" or "the Ostriches"? (Admittedly, the Mighty Ducks -- which now just go by "the Ducks" -- are on shaky ground here, but that's their problem, not mine.)
And Canvasback was not Groucho's problem, either. Because Canvasback had put his questionable talents before the public, the California Court of Appeal ruled that Canvasback was a "public figure" and could not be defamed. (Even if, one assumes, Groucho had the slightest idea who "Canvasback Cohen" was when he made his broadcast.)
• Finally, a 1928 case from Georgia. A woman had attended the circus, and the Georgia Court of Appeals had to decide whether to uphold a $500 jury award about an . . . incident that occurred at the circus.
According to the judge, who wrote in that mincing language of an earlier age, the woman had alleged that while she was in attendance at the circus, "a horse, which was going through a dancing performance immediately in front of [her was] caused to back towards the plaintiff, and while in this situation the horse evacuated his bowels into her lap . . . in full view of many people, some of whom were the defendant's employees, and all of whom laughed at the occurrence." Judge Stephens had to decide whether the jury had correctly determined that this caused her damage for embarrassment, mortification, and mental pain.
To borrow from Judge Gillis, "He did, and she did."
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment