Batman, Barrels, and the Beast 666: Crazy Case Names
In this slideshow, check out some of the oddest case names in legal history. Some of them are self-explanatory, some are deceptive, and others are just plain nuts.
August 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM
9 minute read
What's in a name? Enough for a double-take or two, if the name is Batman v. Commissioner. In the slideshow above and our explanations below, check out some of the oddest case names in legal history. Some of them are self-explanatory, some are deceptive, and others are just plain nuts.
Batman v. Commissioner – This is not a case involving Bruce Wayne wanting more credit for saving Gotham City. Instead, it's about the Batman family. Ray and Edith had a farm in Ochiltree County, Texas. They had a child named Gerald, and Ray decided to give his son a portion of the farm by forming a partnership. But Gerald was 14 when the partnership came into being, and in 1951 the courts thought Ray was using his son to avoid paying income taxes. Gerald was eventually recognized as a full partner in the farm in a 1956 case. The full case name is Ray L. Batman and Edith G. Batman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola: In 1911, the U.S. government tried to force The Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its product. Harvey Washington Wiley, the first FDA commissioner, believed that even small amounts of caffeine were harmful to people. He took Coca-Cola to the U.S. Supreme Court on claims that the soda was “adulterated” (contained a harmful ingredient” and “misbranded” because it “contained no coca and little if any cola.” (Labels on bottles at that time featured images of coca leaves and kola nuts.) No doubt to the great relief of future generations, the government lost the case. United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff: Gerald Mayo tried to sue the Devil in 1971, accusing Old Scratch of “plac[ing] deliberate objects in his path” and “depriv[ing] him of his constitutional rights.” Mayo wanted the costs of the suit waived because he was unable to afford them. The court refused, in part because Mayo never provided the U.S. Marshal with an address so Satan could be served with papers. United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar – In 1924, the Supreme Court decided that apple cider vinegar is misbranded when the vinegar is made from dried apples instead of fresh ones. Douglas Packing used dried apples and rehydrated them with water, instead of using the actual apple juice. A label on the vinegar read “made from selected apples,” and the court decided that the label was misleading to consumers. Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald: Not a case involving both fast food giants. John McDonald sued Domino's claiming racial discrimination involving breach of contracts. McDonald and his company JWM Investments entered into several contracts with the pizza giant under which his company would build four restaurants and then lease them to Domino's. But McDonald alleged an agent for Domino's refused to execute certain documents in order to facilitate JWM's bank financing. McDonald also claimed the agent told him, “I don't like dealing with you people anyway.” McDonald sued Domino's claiming the company broke its contracts with him because of racial animus. Claiming a key provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, McDonald took the case to the Supreme Court in 2006. But SCOTUS, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, denied him victory. Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency: The legal humor site Lowering the Bar says this case is “dull enough to serve as a sleep aid for Charlie Sheen.” The TL;DR of it: It was a 2011 case before the Ninth Circuit about air quality and the irritated citizens won. The California Coalition of Undressed Performers et al v. Spearmint Rhino et al.: Two women who worked as exotic dancers for the allegedly minty-fresh rhino club in California claimed they were wrongly treated as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to benefits. The case was settled for nearly $13 million in favor of the dancers in 2012. 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 – Edmond Frank MacGillvray Jr., who preferred to refer to himself as I Am The Beast etc., was arrested and jailed in 1989 for a nonviolent protest at the Michigan state capitol building. Beast made over 60 allegations of police misconduct and civil rights violations, demanding $1,998,000,000.00 in damages. The case was dismissed. Sources: Mental Floss, Mediaite, Lowering the BarWhat's in a name? Enough for a double-take or two, if the name is Batman v. Commissioner. In the slideshow above and our explanations below, check out some of the oddest case names in legal history. Some of them are self-explanatory, some are deceptive, and others are just plain nuts.
Batman v. Commissioner – This is not a case involving Bruce Wayne wanting more credit for saving Gotham City. Instead, it's about the Batman family. Ray and Edith had a farm in Ochiltree County, Texas. They had a child named Gerald, and Ray decided to give his son a portion of the farm by forming a partnership. But Gerald was 14 when the partnership came into being, and in 1951 the courts thought Ray was using his son to avoid paying income taxes. Gerald was eventually recognized as a full partner in the farm in a 1956 case. The full case name is Ray L. Batman and Edith G. Batman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola: In 1911, the U.S. government tried to forceThis content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
8th Circuit Appeal Could Weaken Key Defense in Disability Bias Cases, Employment Lawyers Say
Michael Cohen Loses Bid for Supreme Court Review of Civil Rights Lawsuit
ACLU's Strangio Will Become First Openly Trans Attorney to Argue at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250