Funny US laws and decisions
Jul 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 14

chesebert

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
4,756
Likes
151
Is this really common knowledge ??

It is a matter of common knowledge and well established that groups of students are for the most part exuberant, boisterous, and hilarious, and that they do not ordinarily keep regular hours and are addicted to the use and abuse of vibrant and sonorous musical instruments.
City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, 63 Cal.Rptr. 419 (1967)

How about this one

Since freedom of speech is not absolute, local legislators, judicial officers and municipal employer might be able to justify restriction on playing of rock and roll music in bar, e.g., by showing that liquor and rock and roll music were explosive mixture.
Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943 (1983) (emphasis added).



You can find the rest here West Headnote of the Day
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 6:46 PM Post #2 of 14

Uncle Erik

Uncle Exotic
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
22,597
Likes
501
I don't have the citation here, but it used to be a misdemeanor to publicly display a hypnotized person in Oregon. The Legislature took it off the books a couple sessions ago, but we always found it amusing. I made a couple attempts to find out what the history of that was, but never found out.

It's still illegal to possess a gray machine up there. +1 to anyone who knows what a gray machine is!
wink.gif
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 6:56 PM Post #3 of 14

G-man

Formerly known as gautam
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
1,830
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't have the citation here, but it used to be a misdemeanor to publicly display a hypnotized person in Oregon. The Legislature took it off the books a couple sessions ago, but we always found it amusing. I made a couple attempts to find out what the history of that was, but never found out.

It's still illegal to possess a gray machine up there. +1 to anyone who knows what a gray machine is!
wink.gif



from what i could gather online, a gray machine is to do with gambling, in which you play against a machine, eg poker:

Gray Machines likely the next target for gambling expansion WV
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 8:18 PM Post #4 of 14

vcoheda

High-End Forum Volunteer
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Posts
10,056
Likes
105
custom and culture is the main driving force of laws, not reason.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 8:23 PM Post #5 of 14

G-man

Formerly known as gautam
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
1,830
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif
custom and culture is the main driving force of laws, not reason.


lol that is a bit extreme. surely most customs (and i say most, not all) are drawn from reason. yes, saying that killing a man is wrong may be derived from many year old customs, but it is there because there is a reasoning behind it.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM Post #6 of 14

vcoheda

High-End Forum Volunteer
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Posts
10,056
Likes
105
Quote:

Originally Posted by gautam /img/forum/go_quote.gif
lol that is a bit extreme.


you're right. i left out the most important factor -- ideology.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 8:31 PM Post #7 of 14

G-man

Formerly known as gautam
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
1,830
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif
you're right. i left out the most important factor -- ideology.


that, again is derived mainly from reasoning.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 9:32 PM Post #8 of 14

malldian

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
2,187
Likes
11
There is certainly an argument against both ideas - I tend to think of ideology in today's culture as far removed from reason. Derived maybe but in the end it really doesn't matter - reason is in the eyes of the beholder.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM Post #9 of 14

G-man

Formerly known as gautam
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
1,830
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by malldian /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There is certainly an argument against both ideas - I tend to think of ideology in today's culture as far removed from reason. Derived maybe but in the end it really doesn't matter - reason is in the eyes of the beholder.


so in the end we have to trust the mass public. we are doomed.
 
Jul 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM Post #10 of 14

malldian

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
2,187
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by gautam /img/forum/go_quote.gif
so in the end we have to trust the mass public. we are doomed.


Why so pessimistic? The masses have been doing a completely reasonable job for a long long time. Dissenters and doomsayers have been proved wrong time and time again... no reason to suspect that now is any different from the years before it.
 
Jul 15, 2008 at 12:38 AM Post #11 of 14

chesebert

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
4,756
Likes
151
let's keep this thread on the lighter side
wink.gif


I swear you can't even make this stuff up:

In Louisiana, commanding precedent, factually on all fours, is called a "Goose case"; such precedent is also known as a "Spotted Horse case" or "Spotted Dog case" in Alabama, a "Cow case" in Kansas, and a "White Horse case" or a "White Pony case" in Texas.
Hays v. State of La., 936 F.Supp. 360 (1996).


Dog does not have fundamental right to travel.
City of Akron v. Tipton, 559 N.E.2d 1385 (1990).
 
Jul 15, 2008 at 3:32 AM Post #12 of 14

Redo

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Posts
2,294
Likes
11
Trial court should have inquired into defendant's religious belief and should have allowed a full record to be developed for appeal before convicting him of contempt for appearing in court for trial dressed "like a chicken," especially in view of defendant's statement that "this is a spiritual attire and it is my religious belief and I have never worn anything else in court but this when I am on trial."
State v. Hodges, 695 S.W.2d 171 (1985)
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 15, 2008 at 3:55 AM Post #13 of 14

Samgotit

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
3,448
Likes
22
Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Trial court should have inquired into defendant's religious belief and should have allowed a full record to be developed for appeal before convicting him of contempt for appearing in court for trial dressed "like a chicken," especially in view of defendant's statement that "this is a spiritual attire and it is my religious belief and I have never worn anything else in court but this when I am on trial."
State v. Hodges, 695 S.W.2d 171 (1985)
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif



There's a no religious discussion policy here. You're going to offend the chickenist, the entire poultry belt, and even some eggnostics. Are you trying to ruffle some feathers?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top