Kopplin v. Quade

There once was a bovine ecstatic,
Who stooped to a deed morganatic.
This Holstein did breed
With trespassing seed,
For a measure of harm problematic.

Compare Kopplin v. Quade, 130 N.W. 511 (Wis. 1911), with Hall v. Umiker, 209 N.W.2d 361 (S.D.1973)
(discussing measure of damages for permitting trespassing animal to impregnate purebred cattle of different breed).

Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd.

There’s a film about a Romanov princess,
Where she folds to the Mad Monk’s insistence.
But, in truth, there’s no disputin’
That she never met Rasputin,
So her suit for tarnished name met no resistance.

Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd., 50 T.L.R. 581, 99 A.L.R. 864 (C.A. 1934)*
(defamatory statement does not require implication of moral fault).

Downs v. Hawley

There once was a man who would straddle,
The derrieres of some cattle.
But the claim he was bare,
In back of a mare,
A jury wrote off as mere prattle.

Downs v. Hawley, 112 Mass. 237 (1873)
(in defamation suit, proof of truth of related, but different, accusation is not defense).

Carsanaro v. Colvin

There once was a wife, and her paramour,
Who gave her a nasty herpetic sore.
Her spouse got it too;
And the Court let him sue,
‘Cause the spread you foresee, you must answer for.

Carsanaro v. Colvin, 716 S.E.2d 40 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
(liability for knowing spread of venereal disease).

Hellar v. Bianco

There once was a lavat’ry wall,
Which said, for a good time, to call….
The pub let it stand,
When she made her demand.
So, a jury, she got to appall.

Hellar v. Bianco, 111 Cal. App. 2d 424 (1952)
(premises liability for knowing republication of defamatory statement).

Doe v. Moe

In bed was a man and a beauty,
Who repositioned her booty.
She slipped while on top,
And made his prick pop.
The Court said, in sex, there's no duty.

Doe v. Moe, 827 N.E.2d 240 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)
(no action for mere negligence involving consensual sexual activity).

Olier v. Bailey

There once were some geese in captivity,
And some had a dangerous proclivity.
So we needn't take gander,
Which goose won't unhand her.
What counts is the gaggle's activity.

Olier v. Bailey, (Miss. Dec. 11, 2014)
(under "one bite" rule, no need to show that specific goose that bit plaintiff had a history of dangerous activity).

Life Insurance Company of North America v. Evans

When my wolf mistook me for a snack,
It triggered my last heart attack.
Does a prior condition
Trump canine commission?
Insurance, please cut me some slack.

Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 637 P.2d 806 (Mont. 1981).

Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait

There once were some models at Neiman,
And a guide said for cash they'd take seamen.
But the charge, while horrific,
Was so non-specific
That we won't see the guide as a demon.

Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait, 107 F.Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y 1952)
(only individuals, and not a group, may be defamed).

Church of Scientology of Minnesota v. Minnesota State Medical Association Foundation

There once was a group, Scientology.
It complained we defamed its theology.
But the source of frustration
Was first publication.
And courts won't do paleontology.

Church of Scientology of Minn. v. Minn. State Med. Ass'n Found., 264 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 1978)
(adopting "first publication" rule for running of statute of limitations)

Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

In a family violence story,
Our pics wrongly showed up on Maury.
The damage by Povich,
Said Judge Tomljanovich:
It must be concrete loss of glory.

Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 544 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1996)
(discussing presumed and specific damages for defamation).

People v. Gleghorn

A man whom you threatened to beat
Volleyed an arrow to greet
His hint was the flight
When you start the fight:
To claim self-defense, first retreat

People v. Gleghorn, 193 Cal.App.3d 196 (1987)
(no right to self-defense against another's response to a person's own aggression, unless the person first retreats).

Regina v. Faulkner

While out to purloin some libation
A sailor did cause conflagration
Should unlawful objective
Grow the aim of corrective?
The verdict below saw negation.

Regina v. Faulkner, 13 Cox C.C. 550
(Hat Tip: F. M. '12)

Chicago v. Morales

Hangin' 'round without purpose apparent
In Chicago offends law not transparent
To fight a crime plague
They made law that's vague
The court ruled the ordinance errant.

Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
(loitering law held unconstitutionally vague).

Ghen v. Rich

In industry worth several million
A conflict on subject Melvillian
When, at first, capture fails
Who owns the dead whales?
By custom? or rule more Vaudvillian?

(Custom.)
Ghen v. Rich, 8 F. 159 (D. Mass. 1881).

Proctor v. State

Selling booze was a landlord's intention
Against which the State sought prevention
But they made as their actus
A quite lawful practice
The court would not buy that contention

Proctor v. State, 176 P. 771, 15 Okla. Crim. 338 (1918).

Deli v. University of Minnesota

There once was a coach of gymnastics
Who taped a pursuit not monastic
While "recharging the battery"
She was loving like Chatterly
Her damages claimed were bombastic

Deli v. Univ. of Minn., 578 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).

De Minimus Rex

When my fungal delights caused kerfluffles
Over tubers, you'd sue to make scuffles
To me it's no vex
I say, "non curat lex"
The law won't concern 'tself with truffles

Hadley v. Baxendale

In Gloucester once there was a mill
For lack of a shaft it went still
The postman delayed
But costs weren't defrayed
'Twas not a foreseeable bill

Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).

Grayson v. Irvmar Realty Corp.

Once a girl with ambitions operatic
Raised a question of damage problematic
An injury to her pitches
Prevented far-'way riches
The award she got was ov'rly numismatic

Grayson v. Irvmar Realty Corp., 7 A.D.2d 436, 184 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1959).