The courtroom is a serious place. Judges preside in black robes, while lawyers stand stiffly in suits and ties, unironically uttering words like inter alia and ipso facto.
But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for humor in judicial chambers. Throughout history, judges have occasionally used their written opinions to revive their dormant dreams of being stand-up comedians or, sometimes, inadvertently showcased their cultural ignorance, much to the amusement of our attorney editors.
Here are our top picks for the funniest judicial opinions.
1. Noble v. Bradford Marine, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 395 (1992)
On October 11, 1988, a fire erupted from the M/V Prime Time, a boat owned by Prime Time Charters, while docked at Bradford Marine’s facilities. The fire quickly spread, destroying vessels owned by Lyn Noble and Robert Muir.
Noble and Muir subsequently filed lawsuits in a Florida state court. Noble amended her complaint to add Prime Time Charters as a defendant, prompting Prime Time to attempt to remove the case to federal court.
This may not seem like the makings of a funny judicial opinion, but it didn’t stop Judge Carriger Paine from writing his entire opinion using lines from the movie Wayne’s World.
Some of the headers used in the opinion included:
- Hurling Chunks
- Like a Winged Monkey Flying Out of the Ashes …
- Not!
- A Schwing and a Miss
Judge Paine concluded his opinion with the words:
“In short, Prime Time’s most bogus attempt at removal is ‘not worthy’ and the Defendants must ‘party on’ in state court.”
2. Schenk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 686 F.2d 315 (1982)
LaVerne Schenk, a Texas farmer, had a practice of prepaying for fertilizer and farm supplies each December. On December 30, 1975, he prepaid $25,000 to Dawn Agricultural Cooperative, allocating $20,000 for fertilizer and $5,000 for general supplies. Schenk claimed the entire $25,000 as a deduction on his 1975 tax return.
The IRS disputed the deduction, arguing that the payment was a deposit, not a bona fide prepayment, and issued a Notice of Deficiency. Schenk challenged the deficiency in the U.S. Tax Court, which ruled against him. Schenk then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
You wouldn’t be unreasonable if you found this arcane tax issue boring, and perhaps Judge Irving Goldberg felt the same. That may be why he decided to channel Ecclesiastes at the start of his opinion:
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to purchase fertilizer, and a time to take a deduction for that which is purchased.”
3. Barbara Kissel v. Schwartz & Maines & Ruby Co. (2011)
Everyone is pleased when a case settles outside of court, but perhaps no one is happier than Judge Martin Sheehan of the 16th Kentucky Circuit Court.
Upon learning that the parties had reached a settlement, eliminating the need for the court to rule on the remaining motions or proceed to trial, Judge Sheehan couldn’t hide his giddiness.
“News of an amicable settlement [has] made this court happier than a tick on a fat dog because it is otherwise busier than a one legged cat in a sandbox and, quite frankly, would have rather jumped naked off of a 12-foot step ladder into a five-gallon bucket of porcupines than have presided over a two-week trial of the dispute herein, a trial, which no doubt, would have made the jury more confused than a hungry baby in a topless bar and made the parties and their attorneys madder than mosquitoes in a mannequin factory.”
4. Peevey v. Burgess, 596 N.Y.S.2d 250, 251 (App. Div. 1993)
Sometimes, the mere recitation of case facts provides enough humor without any need for judicial embellishment. Such was the situation in Peevey v. Burgess, involving a tobacco-loving New Yorker who had attached a spittoon to the emergency brake handle under the dashboard of his pickup.
The deadpan delivery of the facts by Presiding Judge M. Dolores Denman could easily be mistaken for the script of a long-lost Three Stooges episode:
“The spittoon contained about six ounces of spit. After mechanic Robert Shaff completed his work on the truck’s alignment, he opened the driver’s door to get a better view as he backed the truck off the service ramp. Shaft shifted the truck into reverse and bent to find the emergency brake release. When he pulled the handle and released the brake, the brake pedal popped up and struck the spittoon, spraying its contents into Shaff’s face. As a result, Shaff’s eyes burned and he became disoriented, lost control of the truck and fell out. Defendant’s truck continued down the ramp and struck a vehicle being repaired by plaintiff.”
5. United States v. Murphy, 406 F.3d 857, 859-n.1 (7th Cir. 2005)
In a case presided over by Judge Terence Evans of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals involving Darron Murphy Sr., convicted of multiple felonies, a clarification was needed concerning a witness’s statement.
The witness, engaged by law enforcement to buy crack cocaine from Murphy’s son, was later disparagingly referred to by Murphy Sr. The court transcript, according to the reporter, recorded Murphy calling her a “snitch bitch hoe.” Judge Evans noted a possible transcription error in his footnote:
“The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch ‘hoe.’ A ‘hoe,’ of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden’s response. We have taken the liberty of changing ‘hoe’ to ‘ho,’ a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps ‘You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.’ ”
Bonus: Helton v. State, 311 So. 2d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
John Helton was convicted of escape and sentenced to three years in prison. On December 24, 1973, he was lawfully incarcerated in Cell Block “E” of the Alachua County Adult Detention Center. On December 25, 1973, Helton and seven other inmates left the cell block without permission. Helton later called the sheriff’s office from Louisville, Kentucky, and agreed to return in exchange for a delay in notifying Louisville authorities. However, he turned himself in two weeks after the agreed period.
At trial, the defense argued that the jailer had given vodka to the inmates, which led to the escape.
In his opinion, Judge Tyrie Boyer recites the prosecuting attorney’s closing argument—a parody on ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas:
“‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the jail
Not an inmate was stirring, they couldn’t make bail.
The stockings were hung by the cell door with care
In hopes that St. Nicholas would soon be there:
The inmates were huddled alone in their beds
While visions of freedom danced in their heads
And guards in their uniforms and John in his rack
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap,
When up on the roof there arose such a clatter,
John sprang from his bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window he flew like a flash,
Tore open the cell door and threw up the sash.
When what to his wondering eyes should appear
But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick
He knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his courses they came,
And he whistled and shouted, and called them by name:
Now, Macquire, now Bass, now Fillingame, Newman,
On, Ingram, on Suggs, on Crosby, and Helton.
To the top of the porch, to the top of the wall
Now dash away, dash away, dash away all.’”
The appropriateness of humor in judicial opinions is a contentious topic. Opponents argue that the solemnity of legal proceedings demands a high level of respect and equity, which humor can undermine. They contend that humor may demean litigants, who are unable to defend themselves against a judge’s “criticism-insulated, retaliation-proof position,” as Judge George Smith put it in his law review article A Critique of Judicial Humor, making it akin to “hitting a man when he’s down.” Additionally, opponents believe that humor can obscure the legal issues at hand, detracting from the creation of solid precedent.
On the other hand, proponents argue that judicial humor does not necessarily demean the parties and can make legal opinions more engaging and easier to understand. They suggest that informal language and imagery can crystallize legal points, provide context, and enliven the facts.
Ultimately, whether judicial humor is appropriate may depend on its execution and the context in which it is used, balancing respect for the parties with the benefits of readability and engagement.