pageok
pageok
pageok
Great Case Name:
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006).
Hoosier:
Is there a better one? If so, I'd like to know the name.

Suggestions?
5.27.2009 4:44pm
Cornellian (mail):
Is it bad to feel empathy for the respondent?
5.27.2009 4:50pm
rosetta's stones:
Even better, the judge's name is Van Helsing Antwerpen.

Among other charges, he got the guy for witness tampering. If that judge is worth his salt, he's got some juicy double entendres buried in that opinion somewhere.
5.27.2009 4:55pm
Arkady:
Was the trial held in night court?
5.27.2009 4:56pm
Eric Hanneken:
Which vampire nation? Camarilla? Sabbat? Ordo Dracul?
5.27.2009 5:02pm
Steve:
You may think it's a great name, but I think it sucks.
5.27.2009 5:02pm
drunkdriver:
Hoosier: United States v. Kills Enemy is a pretty good one.
5.27.2009 5:05pm
ys:

drunkdriver:
Hoosier: United States v. Kills Enemy is a pretty good one.


Oh, that Kills Enemy? He is just a cousin of Mr. Dances w/ Wolves
5.27.2009 5:12pm
Realist Liberal:
Apparently this guy's somewhat famous in a few circuits. He sues using about 9 different aka's (and mixes around which combination he uses for each suit) and is considered a vexatious litigant in 3 (maybe 4 but I don't remember for sure) circuits and numerous districts. Every time he loses a case he turns around and sues the judge who ruled against him for violating his rights. Still that is a great name to be the lead. And Steve and Arkady FTW!
5.27.2009 5:13pm
Colin (mail):
And Steve and Arkady FTW!

Don't be hasty - the night is young.
5.27.2009 5:17pm
Oren:

Every time he loses a case he turns around and sues the judge who ruled against him for violating his rights.

What possibly possesses people to do this?
5.27.2009 6:09pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Hoosier,

Some of my favorite case names are "United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F. Supp. 208 (W D.N.Y. 1941)" , "United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, No. 05-56274 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)", "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola 241 U.S. 265 (1916)", and "United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries 86 F.2d 737 (2nd Cir. 1936). If one excludes such suits in rem, great case names are much scarcer.
5.27.2009 6:36pm
better (mail):
I prefer the later qui tam; it's nice to see the Government coming in on the side of the undead: United States ex rel. Vampire Nation v. Citifinancial Mortgage Co., 2007 WL 2142404 (W.D. Pa. 2007)
5.27.2009 6:38pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):

it's nice to see the Government coming in on the side of the undead


And that was the Bush DOJ too. I guess they didn't always support big corporations.
5.27.2009 7:01pm
MarkField (mail):

Is there a better one? If so, I'd like to know the name.

Suggestions?


It'll be really hard to top Loving v. Virginia. Ever.
5.27.2009 7:19pm
Steve2:
Drunk Driver, Mr. Kills Enemy's surname really isn't that much different from the English surname "Knight", when you get down to it: name based on an ancestor's martial profession. It's just that it's far more visceral as "Kills Enemy" or "Mankiller"... and thus considerably more awesome.
5.27.2009 7:33pm
AlanO:
My personal favorite has always been United States v. Bad Wound, 203 F.3d. 1072 (8th Cir. 2000). I always try to cite it, no matter how irrelevant or off topic.
5.27.2009 8:10pm
UofC 05 (mail):
My favorite was United States v. 53 Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1982), though the case heading makes it clear that, unlike what Prof. Sunstein said in Admin, the parrots did not in fact represent themselves pro se.
5.27.2009 8:18pm
Stephen C. Carlson (www):
There's always Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971).
5.27.2009 8:20pm
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
Massive props to the AUSA who drafted that indictment. Why bury the good pseudonym when you can front it?
5.27.2009 8:27pm
PeterWimsey (mail):
I think that the American people are the real stakeholders in this litigation. :)

I read the opinion and was somewhat disappointed to learn that Mr. Nation's crime was copying Microsoft software and selling it through Amazon.com. I was expecting something a little less mundane.
5.27.2009 9:43pm
Hoosier:
Oh. My. Lord.

Thanks. I think.
5.27.2009 10:04pm
Dave N (mail):
Mark Field:

Damn you for mentioning Loving v. Virginia FIRST. :)

I agree it can't be beat as a case name--particularly given the subject of the lawsuit.
5.27.2009 10:14pm
George Weiss (mail) (www):
5.27.2009 10:32pm
Hoosier:
But "Virginia is for Lovers."

Or "Viagra." Something like that.
5.28.2009 11:29am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.