THE SHADOW CURSOR: Corpus Juris Fabulae (A Body of Legal Fables)

We need a new body of imaginary law. This is because rules of logic and common sense are rarely codified or reported. But sometimes it seems that they need to be.
 
Those legal professionals who attempt to convey common-sense concepts to lazy or uncomprehending lawyers, or to distracted or overloaded judges, too often feel that they are engaging in what amounts to a sisyphean struggle up the steep, slippery, and syllogistic steps of what should be an intuitively obvious argument – the dead weight of the listener in tow.To lighten this logical load the Shadow proposes the development of a body of imaginary authorities derived from classic works of fiction to support propositions to which no citation could hitherto be made, but the merit of which was always self-evident.
 
Accordingly, the following candidates for a new body of “fabulous” jurisprudence (Corpus Juris Fabulae) are proposed.
 
Boy vs. Wolf
The rule in this case may be cited for the proposition that it is not reversible error for a judge to deny the tenth – albeit meritorious – evidentiary objection of a lawyer whose first nine objections were entirely meritless.
 
Goose vs. Gander
This case may be cited where, for example, a judge sustains the objection raised by opposing counsel to the admission of your evidence on the exact same grounds on which opposing counsel’s evidence was just admitted over your objection. (Arguably, this is a corollary of equal protection. The drafters of the Bill of Rights probably did not cite to this authority as such due to the fact that they could not do so anonymously.)
 
Grasshopper vs. Ant
This case is on all fours with a fact pattern in which an attorney who hasn’t propounded any discovery waits until the week before the end of the discovery period to move for an extension. (Since the rule should be considered remedial in nature, its breadth should not be overly restricted.)
 
In re: the Ugly Duckling
A jury should always be pre-charged to not prejudge a case before all the evidence is submitted, no matter how “ugly” it might first appear. Nor should a judge who doesn’t know or understand the case unmercifully “ride” the plaintiff’s attorney before hearing the entire case in chief.
 
Crow vs. Fox
This authority may be cited when trying to convince an appellate court to reverse an erroneous ruling engendered by the partiality shown to a lawyer whose obsequience and sycophancy biased the trial judge. (e.g., It is an abuse of discretion to provide “cheese” to an attorney who fawningly compliments a judge’s “singing.”)
 
In re: Green Eggs and Ham
It is not reversible error for a judge to refuse to admit evidence that would unnecessarily expand the duration of a trial (and likely annoy the jury) because such a ruling usually benefits the attorney who tried to tender the cornucopian evidence anyway. (“I do so like one-day jury trials Sam I Am!”)
 
Readers are invited to critique the authorities proposed here, and to submit additional candidates for inclusion in the Corpus Juris Fabulae. Citations to these authorities should be made to the volume and issue of the DeKalb Bar News in which they first appear. The Shadow will determine whether and when the authorities have been overruled, modified, or questioned.