In Brown v. State, Judge Randall Evans, Jr. not only wrote one of the earliest in the long line of rhyming judicial opinions, he did it for a good reason. As he explained in a footnote:

This opinion is placed in rhyme because approximately one year ago, in Savannah at a very convivial celebration, the distinguished Judge Dunbar Harrison … arose and addressed those assembled, and demanded that if [I] ever again was so presumptuous as to reverse one of his decisions, that the opinion be written in poetry.

This back story puts the opinion a cut above the usual rhyming opinion. You gotta love a judge who takes on such a challenge from a colleague after a couple of drinks (I assume that’s what “a very convivial celebration” means) and honors it.

To his further credit, Justice Evans conceded he is “not a poet, and the language used, at best, is mere doggerel” and also insisted that it’s really hard to write a rhyming judicial opinion. Here’s a taste of the opinion (several verses omitted, but I tried to keep the general thread). But the funniest part is that he wrote it at all. He even specifically mentions Judge Harrison:

 The D. A. was ready

His case was red-hot.

Defendant was present,

His witness was not.

He prayed one day’s delay

From His honor the judge.

But his plea was not granted

The Court would not budge.

So the jury was empaneled

All twelve good and true

But without his main witness

What could the twelve do?

…

‘What verdict, Mr. Foreman?’

The learned judge inquired.

‘Guilty, your honor.’

On Brown’s face—no smile.

‘Stand up’ said the judge,

Then quickly announced

‘Seven years at hard labor’

Thus his sentence pronounced.

‘This trial was not fair,‘

The defendant then sobbed.

‘With my main witness absent

I’ve simply been robbed.’

‘I want a new trial—

State has not fairly won.’

‘New trial denied,‘

Said Judge Dunbar Harrison.

…

So the case has reached us—

And now we must decide

Was the guilty verdict legal—

Or should we set it aside?

…

Was one day’s delay

Too much to expect?

Could the State refuse it

With all due respect?

…

We’ve considered this case

Through the night—

through the day.

As Judge Harrison said,

‘We must earn our poor pay.’

This case was once tried—

But should now be rehearsed

And tried one more time.

This case is reversed.

— Brown v. State, 216 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)

With several rhyming judges having fun with people’s cases, one must wonder what the judges would do if the shoe was on the other foot–if lawyers submitted rhyming court documents in a case, perhaps a poetic brief. Now we know! Well, at least with regard to one tolerant judge.

In Mackensworth v. American Trading Transportation Co., a judge responded as a good sport to some poetic pleadings submitted by counsel. For reasons unknown, the plaintiff’s lawyer submitted a poetic reply brief, stirring defense counsel to reply poetically as well.

U.S. District Judge Edward R. Becker decided to be a good sport and join in the fun. Although not set out in this excerpt, the West headnote writers once again had a good rhyme time with the case. Here are some excerpts from Judge Becker’s order:

The motion now before us has stirred up a terrible fuss.

And what is considerably worse, it has spawned some preposterous doggerel verse.

The plaintiff, a man of the sea,

after paying his lawyer a fee,

filed a complaint of several pages to recover statutory wages.

The pleaded facts remind us of a tale that is endless.

A seaman whom for centuries the law has called “friendless”

is discharged from the ship before voyage’s end

and sues for lost wages, his finances to mend.

***

Plaintiff’s counsel, whose name is Harry Lore,

read defendant’s brief and found it a bore.

Instead of a reply brief, he acted pretty quick

and responded with a clever limerick:

“Admiralty process is hoary

With pleadings that tell a sad story

Of Libels in Rem-

The bane of sea-faring men

The moral:

Better personally served than be sorry.”

Not to be outdone, the defense took the time

to reply with their own clever rhyme.

The defense counsel team of Mahoney, Roberts, & Smith

drafted a poem cutting right to the pith:

“Admiralty lawyers like Harry

Both current and those known from lore

Be they straight types, mixed or fairy

Must learn how to sidestep our bore.

For Smith, not known for his mirth

With his knife out for Mackensworth

With Writs, papers or Motions to Quash

Knows that dear Harry’s position don’t wash.”

Overwhelmed by this outburst of pure creativity,

we determined to show an equal proclivity.

Hence this opinion in the form of verse,

even if not of the calibre of Saint-John Perse.

[Court proceeds to wax poetic about long arm jurisdiction, concluding with:]

Finding that service of process is bona fide,

the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

So that this case can now get about its ways,

defendant shall file an answer within 21 days.

— Mackensworth v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., 367 F. Supp. 373, 374–75, 377 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Thanks to Lihwei Lin.

Pennsylvania Judge Mike Eakin is a poetic soul who specializes in opinions that rhyme.

In Zangrando v. Sipula, Zangrando was walking her miniature poodles, Angel and Autumn, when Sipula struck one of the dogs with his car. Zangrando sued Sipula for payment of the vet bills. Here’s a short excerpt from Judge Eakin’s rhyming decision, affirming the trial court’s award of damages:

The car was coming much too close, something inside told her; the next thing Mrs. Zangrando knew, a poodle flew over her shoulder.

To appellee this was nothing short of an unmitigated disaster; the wingless Angel’d taken flight and ascended quickly past her.

 In this brace of miniature poodles, neither one wide nor tall; one may have been named Autumn, but t’was Angel took the fall.

Don’t worry. Poor little Angel recovered from her injuries. A fundamental rule of writing rhyming judicial opinions—of which there are many in the annals of law—is that the injury be slight. The opinion wouldn’t be as amusing if it rhymed: “When the doggie got squashed under the SUV’s wheels; it put a quick end to his plaintive squeals.”

— Zangrando v. Sipula, 756 A.2d 73, 75 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). Thanks to Professor Coleen Barger.

In Fisher v. Lowe, the plaintiff sued defendant for driving his automobile into plaintiff’s oak tree, damaging the tree. The Michigan trial court ruled in favor of the defendant and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Here is the court’s actual opinion:

We thought that we would never see

A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest

Upon a mangled tree’s behest;

A tree whose battered trunk was prest

Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day

With bark and limb in disarray;

A tree that may forever bear

A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,

We must uphold the court’s decree.

Affirmed.

The court’s opinion prompted the usually staid headnote writers at West Publishing Co. to take their own poetic license. This one’s worth checking out in full.

— Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W.2d 67, 67 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).