Breaking up the court opinion monotony

November 16, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I read a lot of court opinions – more than I ever thought I would read as someone who has no formal legal education. In fact, when we had to read opinions in a media law class in college, I dreaded it and hoped to never have to do it again.

Cut to today where I read them every day now. I’ll admit, the process isn’t as painful as it was in college. However, that doesn’t mean that some of these opinions aren’t so dry that I lose interest quickly or need some sugar to keep me alert. Because of this, I’m quite appreciative when opinions are written with some wit, humor, or anything out of the ordinary.

Take for instance a not-for-publication opinion today authored by Chief Judge John Baker on the Indiana Court of Appeals. How’s this for a catchy first sentence: “Appellant-defendant Blake Parkins observes that breaking up is hard to do.”

I immediately had the song “Breaking up is hard to do” by Neil Sedaka (yes, I had to Google who originally sang it) in my head. Suddenly, this opinion has potential to entertain me! Perhaps now you have that song in your head after reading that sentence.

He goes on to write: “Surviving a breakup with a modicum of dignity—in a law-abiding fashion—is possible, however. Parkins should have learned how to carry on, turned around, and walked out the door, but instead he struck his former wife with a car while one of their young daughters was unrestrained in the backseat screaming for help.”

Of course, hitting your ex-wife with a car is not entertaining or funny. But when I read “carry on, turned around, and walked out the door” I then had the song “I will survive” by Gloria Gaynor in my head.

Who knows if those songs were inspiration or if I’m just delirious from reading so many opinions that I’m just looking for something to make it more interesting, but I liked the references.

Let’s be frank: legal opinions are usually boring and cut-and-dry, and the point is to impart a legal ruling on an issue. They don’t need to be jazzy or snazzy, but as someone who has to frequently read them, I’m happy whenever there’s something a little out of the ordinary included. And “Breaking up is hard to do” is still stuck in my head, hours later.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • The Rule of Law?
    Cute, but the real question is not how entertaining the judges can be but rather this ... what do "not for publication" judgments say about our commitment to the rule of law? Is it the judiciary saying "ignore the man behind the curtain on this opinion, we simply must use a different set of rules for this party?" Yes, I am afraid that might very well be the case. In that case perhaps we should be hearing less Neil Sedaka and more Neil Young? "Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming ..." I could be biased, I am one who fell victim to such back room judging right here in Indiana. Dead not at Kent State, but before the IBLE with no deference to the Rule of Law -- or even a citation to one case.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT