Buzz
The U.S. court system has seen its fair share of peculiar cases. Some stand out not for their arguments but for their utterly outrageous names, even if the legal disputes themselves are surprisingly mundane.
(If you find these amusing, credit goes to Kevin Underhill, who has spent years gathering humorous case names on his blog and recently authored a book on the topic.)
1. Batman v. Commissioner, 189 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 877 (1951)
Surprisingly, this isn’t a lawsuit where Batman takes on Commissioner Gordon over the use of the Bat-Signal on quiet summer evenings. The actual Batman v. Commissioner case revolves around a farming dispute.
The case: Beginning in the 1920s, Ray and Edith Batman managed their family farm in Ochiltree County, Texas, a world away from Gotham. Their son, Gerald Batman, a diligent young boy, impressed his father so much that Ray decided to transfer part of the farm to him, establishing a partnership.
However, Gerald was only 14 when this "partnership" started, and the courts saw it as a tactic to avoid income taxes. Since Gerald’s role mainly involved receiving assets from his father and occasionally working the land around his school schedule, the U.S. Tax Court ruled the partnership as unbalanced. The case was formally titled: Ray L. Batman and Edith G. Batman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Interestingly, the Batman family’s partnership was later validated in another case. Once Gerald grew up, he was acknowledged as a full partner, and a 1956 ruling confirmed the legitimacy of the partnership in subsequent years.
2. Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin), 215 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 1974)
When a state like Nebraska takes legal action against an inexpensive car, it’s clear something unusual is happening.
The case: In 1974, Nebraska authorities confiscated a 1970 AMC Gremlin after discovering "an ounce or two" of marijuana inside. The owner, Donald D. Ruyle, challenged the seizure, claiming the car wasn’t actively used to "transport" the marijuana since it was parked and locked during the search, and the quantity found was minimal. Nebraska prevailed and retained the car. However, Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Lawrence M. Clinton dissented, stating:
A simple analogy illustrates the issue: If someone drives groceries home from the store, it’s clear the car is being used "to transport" them. But if a box of tissues is kept in the glove compartment for occasional use, can it truly be said the car is being used "to transport" the tissues?
The takeaway: If you own a '70 Gremlin, storing a few ounces of tissues "for use when needed" is fine. Marijuana, however, is a different story.
3. United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976)
Yes, we’re now taking legal action against cardboard boxes—50,000 of them, give or take.
The case: Much like the Gremlin case, this involves property forfeiture. It was recently spotlighted by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight during a segment on law enforcement’s use of property forfeiture. Take a look:
If you’re curious about the Clacker Balls case, here are two things to know. First, it’s surprisingly intricate. Second, some records show the full case name is even more absurdly lengthy than what’s mentioned above:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. AN ARTICLE of hazardous substance CONSISTING OF 50,000 cardboard BOXES more or less, each containing one pair OF CLACKER BALLS, labeled in part: (Box) "* * * Kbonger * * It's Fun Test Your Skill It Bounces It Flips Count The Hits * * * Specialty Mfg. Co., Seattle, Wash. * *", Defendant.
Keep clacking, you wild balls.
4. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts in Edmond Frank MacGillivray Jr. Now. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts IEFMJN. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts OTLOHIEFMJN. I Am The Beast SSSOTLOHIEFMJN. I Am The Beast Six Six Six. Beast Six Six Six Lord v. Michigan State Police, et al., File No. 5:89:92, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8792 (W.D. Mich. July 12, 1990)
This case is often shortened to "I Am The Beast etc. v. Michigan State Police," which remains an incredibly memorable case name.
The case: First, let’s address the obvious. Edmond Frank MacGillivray Jr. legally changed his name to I Am The Beast Sssotlohiefmjn in 1998. His elaborate new surname stands for "Six six six of the Lord of Hosts in Edmond Frank MacGillivray Jr. now." However, the issue here wasn’t his name. Instead, I Am The Beast etc. sought $1,998,000,000.00 (nearly $2 billion) in damages following his arrest for a nonviolent protest at the Michigan state capitol. He accused the police of misconduct and raised several other claims (definitely worth reading!). The case was ultimately dismissed.
Note: I Am The Beast etc. reportedly returned to court several years later for another legal battle.
5. Death v. Graves, CGC-06-451316 (San Francisco Super. Ct. filed Apr. 17, 2006)
This case has limited online documentation, but this brief summary is intriguing (particularly the final two words):
Lawsuit claiming the defendants' vehicle collided with plaintiff Alan Death's motorcycle; Death survived.
6. Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, ___ F.3d ___, No. 09-71383 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011)
You can dive into the details of this case, but it’s undeniably dull. Here’s the gist: it revolved around air quality, and the "Association of Irritated Residents" emerged victorious. (I’d say they won the moment they chose that name.)
7. United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2003)
The case: Yet another civil forfeiture case, but this time the seized item was a fragment of the actual moon (and, of course, a plaque). It’s a remarkably intricate case, beginning with this fascinating detail:
I. FACTS The moon rock was originally collected from the lunar surface by astronauts during a NASA mission. In 1973, President Nixon, representing the United States, gifted the moon rock and plaque to the government and people of Honduras. A. MR. ROSEN'S ACQUISITION OF THE ITEMS While on a business trip to Honduras in early 1994, Mr. Rosen was informed by a friend that a retired Honduran military colonel was looking to sell a moon rock. Initially uninterested due to the $1 million price tag, Mr. Rosen compared it to "buying the Brooklyn Bridge." However, after some research, he discovered that a slide containing lunar dust had sold at Sotheby's for $500,000.
The story only gets more intriguing from there. (For more details, check out Kevin Underhill’s coverage in Forbes.)
8. Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
Is Juicy Whip taking on Orange Bang, or is it the reverse? This patent law case is a tangled web of claims and counterclaims.
The case: Juicy filed a lawsuit against Orange, claiming that Orange had violated Juicy’s patent for a beverage-dispensing system. Orange countered that Juicy’s dispenser wasn’t patentable to begin with, as it "lacked utility," making any infringement irrelevant. Orange lost the case and subsequently appealed, multiple times.
9. Terrible v. Terrible, 534 P.2d 919 (Nev. 1975)
The case: Elizabeth Terrible took Joseph Terrible to court in a post-divorce dispute that reached the Nevada Supreme Court. The conflict centered on marital property that was divided and sold during the divorce. Despite the dramatic name, the case is remarkably dull.
10. Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989)
The case: Schmuck v. United States reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the court upheld the mail fraud conviction of Wayne T. Schmuck from Illinois. The case stemmed from Schmuck’s scheme to roll back car odometers and falsify vehicle titles (which involved mailing fraudulent title applications). However, the Supreme Court’s focus wasn’t on the odometer tampering itself but on whether the jury should have been instructed about convicting him on a "lesser included charge." Wikipedia provides an exhaustive breakdown of the case, concluding with this noteworthy detail:
In a brief 1993 Yale Law Journal article discussing the rise of Yiddish loanwords in American legal rulings, Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh observed that the prevalence of people actually named Schmuck made it difficult to trace the word’s usage in legal opinions. "We can’t quantify how deeply schmuck has infiltrated legal jargon, which is unfortunate, since schmucks are even more frequent in courtrooms than schlemiels, schmoozing, and chutzpah," they noted. "However, we can highlight that there’s a U.S. Supreme Court case titled Schmuck v. United States; for context, the petitioner was a used-car salesman."
11. United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff (W.D. Pa. 1971)
The case: Gerald Mayo tried to take legal action against the Devil, claiming in part:
[Mayo] asserts that Satan has repeatedly inflicted suffering and unjustified threats upon him, against his will, placed intentional obstacles in his path, and caused his downfall. Plaintiff argues that these actions have violated his constitutional rights.
Mayo submitted the lawsuit in forma pauperis, meaning he sought a waiver for court fees due to financial hardship. However, when facing Satan, the costs can be astronomical. The court denied his request, stating:
We observe that the plaintiff has not provided the necessary instructions for the United States Marshal regarding the service of process along with his complaint.
Translation: If you can’t locate Satan to deliver the legal documents, you’re out of options.
