We’ve recently encountered an unusual number of unconventionally-formatted court documents. To name a couple, there was that graphic novellette of an amicus brief, and the Emily Dickinson-inspired judicial order.
Today we’ve got another brief that wouldn’t appear out of place on a Reddit thread.
It’s not high-quality art by any means, but there’s (maybe) something to be said for illustrating your points with clip art of crying babies and crickets chirping.
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
And besides, isn’t humor the best way to win an argument?
The case in question is Smoot v. Hopper, out of Oklahoma. I’d like to think the eccentricity of the filing has something to do with the state’s overall weirdness, but it doesn’t really matter.
This particular motion, from the end of last week, is apparently a continuation of sparring each side’s alleged problems with filing court documents in a timely manner. After defense counsel apparently complained about plaintiffs’ alleged tardiness, the plaintiffs had a little something to say.
LexisNexis Practical Guidance Rolls Out Dedicated Practice Area for AI & Technology
The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
Attorney Jasen Corns has taken the admirable, ‘Don’t get mad, get funny” tactic:
Ah yes, the sound of silence and unfiled court briefs. But hopefully not his joke falling flat in front of a judge.
Corns’s motion is only a few pages (crazily, this isn’t a pro se document. He’s a real lawyer with a legit website), but it’s also got these two gems:
Effective? Who knows. Professional? Eh. Awesome? Definitely.
Response: Smoot v. Hopper [District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma]