![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
May. 9th, 2006
a fool for a client
May. 9th, 2006 01:34 pmone of my jobs this summer is as a research assistant. i am researching loss of enjoyment of life damages in tort cases that result in disability.
this is the first of probably a long line of amusing things i dig up over the course of my research.
i was reading Sabich v. Outboard Marine (131 Cal.Rptr. 703), a case about an ATV that overturned on top of a guy, causing severe lung problems and leg problems. a part of the case discussed the ability to recover damages for the embarrassment that the plaintiff felt for being disabled as a result of the accident.
way to go
i then keycited it. (for all you non-law-students reading this, keycite is a dandy little feature on westlaw that allows me to find, with one click of the mouse, any case that has cited the case that i am reading. i don't know how people did legal research without it.) a few cases came up, one of them being a case called Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153 (23 F.3d 94), a case from texas.
this case is not a personal injury case. this case is a search and seizure case. i bet you know where this is going.
that's right. the idiot defendant decided to cite sabich, the ATV crash case, to justify damages for feeling embarrassed about being searched by the cop:
When requested to describe his injuries, Macias stated:
Humiliation, Embarrassment, just because the lens was out. I, Moses Macias, Jr., was ordered around to stand in different positions, was also search[ed] outside the car without any probable cause. Search and seizure laws are very strict. An officer needs a warrant and the Warrant has to be specific on where to search and the officers needs probable cause, an affidavit made by oath, by a witness describing exactly where to search. [FN2]
FN2. Macias also cited a case, apparently as authority for his claim for damages. That case, Sabich v. Outboard Marine Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 591, 131 Cal.Rptr. 703 (1976), is a products liability action concerning all-terrain vehicles.
a cookie for the judge, for the subtle smackdown.
i looked further, to confirm a little suspicion i had, and my suspicion was correct: this dingbat was representing himself. it's more proof of the old adage that he who represents himself has a fool for a client.
(p.s.--if you do have westlaw access, it would be well worth your while to look up the macias case, scroll down to the bottom, and look at the .pdf file of the appellant's brief. it's a beautiful example of awful legal writing.)
this is the first of probably a long line of amusing things i dig up over the course of my research.
i was reading Sabich v. Outboard Marine (131 Cal.Rptr. 703), a case about an ATV that overturned on top of a guy, causing severe lung problems and leg problems. a part of the case discussed the ability to recover damages for the embarrassment that the plaintiff felt for being disabled as a result of the accident.
way to go
i then keycited it. (for all you non-law-students reading this, keycite is a dandy little feature on westlaw that allows me to find, with one click of the mouse, any case that has cited the case that i am reading. i don't know how people did legal research without it.) a few cases came up, one of them being a case called Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153 (23 F.3d 94), a case from texas.
this case is not a personal injury case. this case is a search and seizure case. i bet you know where this is going.
that's right. the idiot defendant decided to cite sabich, the ATV crash case, to justify damages for feeling embarrassed about being searched by the cop:
When requested to describe his injuries, Macias stated:
Humiliation, Embarrassment, just because the lens was out. I, Moses Macias, Jr., was ordered around to stand in different positions, was also search[ed] outside the car without any probable cause. Search and seizure laws are very strict. An officer needs a warrant and the Warrant has to be specific on where to search and the officers needs probable cause, an affidavit made by oath, by a witness describing exactly where to search. [FN2]
FN2. Macias also cited a case, apparently as authority for his claim for damages. That case, Sabich v. Outboard Marine Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 591, 131 Cal.Rptr. 703 (1976), is a products liability action concerning all-terrain vehicles.
a cookie for the judge, for the subtle smackdown.
i looked further, to confirm a little suspicion i had, and my suspicion was correct: this dingbat was representing himself. it's more proof of the old adage that he who represents himself has a fool for a client.
(p.s.--if you do have westlaw access, it would be well worth your while to look up the macias case, scroll down to the bottom, and look at the .pdf file of the appellant's brief. it's a beautiful example of awful legal writing.)
tuesday night again
May. 9th, 2006 08:02 pmnotes to the american idol finalists
dear taylor,
you should kick simon cowell in the head. whenever you're extremely entertaining, he knocks you. he's just jealous. your jailhouse rock was possibly more entertaining than your play that funky music was last week. you even did justice to the more toned-down song...in the ghetto is my favourite elvis song, and you sang it well.
i still think you should be the next american idol.
love,
me
dear chris,
three words: nickelback does elvis.
tossing rotten tomatoes,
me
dear katharine,
you have such a good voice. you were surprisingly good at hound dog, although forgetting the lyrics is something you should try not to do. also, that first shirt you wore was heinous. i can't help falling in love with you was...well suited for your voice, but overly bombastic. it was...unnecessary.
you can sing, but you've made too many little missteps.
trying to let you down easy 'cause i like you,
me
dear elliot,
no, i am not convinced that you are evil. i am only convinced that you are a boy band reject who likes the melismas way too much. and, you still make my ears bleed.
whoever sticks a cork down your trachea would be doing a public service.
get voted off soon,
me.
dear taylor,
you should kick simon cowell in the head. whenever you're extremely entertaining, he knocks you. he's just jealous. your jailhouse rock was possibly more entertaining than your play that funky music was last week. you even did justice to the more toned-down song...in the ghetto is my favourite elvis song, and you sang it well.
i still think you should be the next american idol.
love,
me
dear chris,
three words: nickelback does elvis.
tossing rotten tomatoes,
me
dear katharine,
you have such a good voice. you were surprisingly good at hound dog, although forgetting the lyrics is something you should try not to do. also, that first shirt you wore was heinous. i can't help falling in love with you was...well suited for your voice, but overly bombastic. it was...unnecessary.
you can sing, but you've made too many little missteps.
trying to let you down easy 'cause i like you,
me
dear elliot,
no, i am not convinced that you are evil. i am only convinced that you are a boy band reject who likes the melismas way too much. and, you still make my ears bleed.
whoever sticks a cork down your trachea would be doing a public service.
get voted off soon,
me.
weakest link, child stars edition:
"what is the most populous city in the world?"
"china!"
"what yearly sporting event was cancelled in 1994 due to a labour dispute?"
"china!"
what made me giggle is that the guy who answered these both was dustin diamond.
go screech.
"what is the most populous city in the world?"
"china!"
"what yearly sporting event was cancelled in 1994 due to a labour dispute?"
"china!"
what made me giggle is that the guy who answered these both was dustin diamond.
go screech.