An opinion was written with lines from the movie “Wayne’s World” and holding that defendant’s “most bogus” attempt at removal is “not worthy” and “way improvident,” and arguing that the defendant must “party on” in state court. Sections of the opinion are labeled “Hurling Chunks” and “A Schwing and a Miss.”
~Noble v. Bradford Marine, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 395 (S.D. Fla. 1992)
The herein matter having been scheduled for a trial by jury commencing July 13, 2011, and numerous pre-trial motions having yet to be decided and remaining under submission;
And the parties having informed the Court that the herein matter has been settled amicably (the Court uses the word amicably loosely) and that there is no need for a Court ruling on the remaining motions and also that there is no need for a trial;
And such news of an amicable settlement having made this Court happier than a tick on a fat dog because it is otherwise busier than a one-legged cat in a sand box and, quite frankly, would have rather jumped naked off of a twelve foot step ladder into a five gallon bucket of porcupines than have presided over a two week trial of the herein dispute, 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;
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court as follows:
- The jury trial scheduled herein for July 13, 2011is hereby CANCELLED.
. . .
- The Clerk shall engage the services of a structural engineer to ascertain if the return of this file to the Clerk’s office will exceed the maximum structural load of the floors of said office.
Dated this 19 day of July, 2011.
MARTIN J. SHEEHAN
Kenton Circuit Judge
~Kissel v Schwartz & Maines, Kenton Circuit Court of Kentucky (2011)
The opinion is as follows:
Libel in divorce by husband against wife.
Answer by wife.
Issue on cruel and barbarous treatment.
Trial by judge without jury.
She his second.
He her second.
Her dowry to him five ready-made children.
His contribution to her the same number.
None added since.
She, without a vestige of feminine loveliness.
He without a mark of masculine attraction.
From start to finish a perfectly inexplicable and hopeless connubial absurdity.
One averred ground of divorce, her cruel and barbarous treatment.
Another, indignities to his person.
Only proved specific instance of former his nose broken by her use of a stove lifter.
Only proved specific instance of latter her un-ladylike behavior in the privacy of nuptial privilege.
Nose possibly broken in self-defense as testified.
Unladylike behavior possibly incited by his own lack of good manners.
No course of bad treatment on one side more than on the other.
Blame balanced as six and half a dozen.
He mean enough to seek divorce.
She mean enough to resist.
Parties too much alike ever to have been joined in marriage.
Also too much alike to be separated by divorce.
Having made their own bed must lie down in it.
Lying out of it, no standing in court.
Decree (for divorce) refused with allowance to respondent of $25.00 for counsel fees to be paid by the libelant.
~ Justice Fuller of the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania at Luzerne, Kmicz v Kmicz, 1921 USFJDO 1, also at Luz. L. Reg. R. 330 and at 50 Pa.C.C. 588