Hallowe’en is next Friday, and to put it mildly, it offers unique moments compared to any other day of the year. It’s the only day of the year, for example, when banks put signs on their doors saying, “Please remove your mask before entering” — so it was quite amusing when, during the pandemic, they had to post signs saying “Do not enter without a mask.” (And of course, as Poe pointed out in “The Cask of Amontillado,” if you’re going to commit a crime — what better day than when everyone is going about in disguise already?)
So, even though it’s still a few days away, and following our annual tradition, here’s a sampling of some Hallowe’en court tales:
• Florida (why does it always seem to be Florida?) gives us the amusing case of the parent of two children attending a public school who sued the school claiming the school’s Hallowe’en festivities were actually a celebration of the “Wicca” religion, and therefore prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Of course, the current Supreme Court can’t seem to find the Establishment Clause with both hands, so . . . perhaps it’s just as well.)
But about that Florida case. As “evidence,” the parent cited that some teachers dressed in Hallowe’en-related costumes (including a clown costume, a Ronald Reagan costume, and a witch costume); a member of the PTA put up a carnival poster depicting a Hallowe’en witch stirring a pot; that some classes held storybook dress-up day, where the teacher dressed as a book character, and a teacher dressed as the witch from “The Wizard of Oz”; and that some classes used the book “Strega Nona,” an award-winning fairy tale that had a witch character.
Seems like pretty clear-cut evidence of “Wiccan-ism” — especially the Reagan costume. But the Florida courts disagreed, citing, amusingly enough, cases in which atheists had unsuccessfully challenged various Christmas displays but the courts had ruled that there is both a religious and a secular aspect to Christmas. And, so it appears, to Hallowe’en, too.
And please — no one tell that parent that the Postal Service put Strega Nona on a stamp back in 2023.
• The “mother of all Hallowe’en cases,” or at least those related to ghosts, goblins and the like, was a case entitled Stambovsky v. Ackley, decided in New York in 1991. Mrs. Ackley had actively promoted her house as “haunted,” even writing a story in the May, 1977 Reader’s Digest entitled “Our Haunted House on the Hudson.” (The house was located in Nyack, New York.) Mr. Stambovsky later purchased the house — and soon learned of its reputation from neighbors.
Though no doubt laughing it off to friends and family . . . Stambovsky quickly sued Mrs. Ackley to negate the sale. His problem was that New York is a “caveat emptor” state. (“Caveat emptor” means, “Let the buyer beware” . . . or in this case, very beware.) In those states that follow that rule, the seller is normally under no duty to disclose anything that the buyer doesn’t ask about. The court of appeal acknowledged that ordinarily such a buyer didn’t have “a ghost of a chance,” but the judge said he was nevertheless moved by the “spirit of equity” to let Mr. Ackley out of the deal (while also quoting a passage from Hamlet in which the ghost of Hamlet’s father addresses him). The court ruled that a poltergeist was such an unusual “defect” that it was unreasonable for Stambovsky to have asked about it ahead of time.
• Finally, from Massachusetts comes a decision in which the court found that the party appealing a decision in a civil case had waived the right to challenge — and I am not making this us — jurors being allowed to wear Hallowe’en costumes in the courtroom on Hallowe’en. The court of appeal noted that the right to challenge the wearing of the costumes had been waived because the judge first consulted with the attorneys, and all of the attorneys (apparently none of them wanting to be the wet blanket who wouldn’t go along) agreed that jurors could wear them.
Thankfully, it was a civil case. Imagine being the defendant on trial for your life and looking over at the jury box, only to realize that your fate was going to be decided by, among others, a scarecrow, a robot, someone in a Star Trek uniform, a sexy nurse, a witch, a Frankenstein’s monster, a clown, a Disney princess, a pirate, and a person dressed as the Little Mermaid?
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies hallowe en treats was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: Hallowe’en treats )
Also on site :
- 11 Colorado schools receive threats, several on lockdown
- Jason and Travis Kelce’s ‘New Heights’ Launches Retail Hub (Exclusive)
- Aurora man arrested on suspicion of starting massive Leetsdale Drive fire