May 2011 - Jefferson County Public Schools

Most Outrageous Cases v. Important Cases
By: Brandon Grant
Some very important cases have been ruled upon in the past few years, as well as some outrageous ones. I’ve
collected a few of them for you to see that law can be very important, but also hilarious at times. Remember as you read
that these cases, some of them have changed the history of law, so enjoy. Taken from: Top 5 Most Outrageous Cases and
Supreme Court History: The First 100 Years.
MAJORLY MINOR IRRITANT
Some of us may remember Ed McMahon as the once lovable sidekick on
The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, but he's largely shed that image
with a string of lawsuits that has reaped big rewards for the financiallychallenged
entertainer. In addition to being sued for not paying his divorce
attorney, McMahon has been known for his hobby of dishing out lawsuits
himself, the most frivolous of which was against his home insurer over
some mold that he blamed for contributing to the death of his beloved dog.
At the time of the lawsuit, a serious hysteria had swept the delicate
residents of Beverly Hills over the concern that a once minorily-irritating
mold had mutated into something toxic. And despite the fact that the
Center for Disease Control dispelled this myth, McMahon walked away
with an astronomical $7 million dollar payout.
1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 --
decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled
that Americans of African descent,
whether free or slave, were not American
citizens and could not sue in federal court.
The Court also ruled that Congress lacked
power to ban slavery in the U.S.
territories. Finally, the Court declared that
the rights of slave owners were
constitutionally protected by the Fifth
Amendment because slaves were
categorized as property.
IT''S OVER 9000 CENTS!
While most of us associate lawsuits with roundabout ways at nabbing enormous quantities of money? Some are all in it for
the principle of the thing. This is the case with Canadian border guard Yves Julien who in December of 2003 filed a lawsuit
against the border patrol for not reimbursing him on a $9 sandwich he paid for while working overtime. Though he was
receiving the standard one-and-a-half pay for working overtime, Julien argued that the lack of money for meals was unfair.
So he did the thing any normal person suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder would do. He decided to take his battle
to the courts. The lawsuit spanned the course of five years and included numerous rulings, counter-rulings, counter-counter
rulings and etc and infinitum before he was finally awarded his $9. Julien then proceeded to celebrate the victorious
outcome of his 5-year-long battle by using the money to buy a six-pack of Labatt Bleu to drink alone and friendless in his
darkened apartment.
HOT COFFEE, COLD HARD CASH
Perhaps one of the most famous cases of frivolous litigation was
the 1994 lawsuit against McDonalds for brewing their java at
dangerously hot temperatures which resulted in the injury of 84-
year old woman Stella Liebeck. This led to a $640,000 payout to
Liebeck and the case later became a "hot" topic for the debate
about the rise of petty lawsuits in the early 90''s, and the ruling
was so unexpected that McDonalds had previously denied multiple
attempts to settle out of court, claiming they never expected to get
in trouble for serving coffee "the way the customers like it."
But at least one customer certainly didn't like it, though after the
victorious lawsuit you might imagine her saying "I'm loving it."
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme
Court considered the constitutionality of a
Louisiana law passed in 1890 "providing for
separate railway carriages for the white and
colored races." The law, which required that all
passenger railways provide separate cars for
blacks and whites, stipulated that the cars be
equal in facilities, banned whites from sitting in
black cars and blacks in white cars (with
exception to "nurses attending children of the
other race"), and penalized passengers or
railway employees for violating its terms.