11 thoughts on “Wednesday Writs: It’s Spooky Season Edition

  1. [L3] – Calling a terrorist* a ‘serial killer’ diminishes the achievements** of both terrorists and serial killers.

    *or ‘freedom fighter’ if one would like.

    **or ‘achievements’

    eta – also, you can’t kill just one person and be called a serial killer. Come on, Thought Catalog.Report

    1. I knew someone would call me out on that ;-).

      While we are at it, may as well point out that Dahmer was not executed, but murdered in prison by fellow inmates.Report

  2. Legally being required to inform a potential buyer whether a house is haunted seems to be a legal acknowledgment of The Afterlife.

    This strikes me as potentially problematic.Report

    1. “defendant seller deliberately fostered the public belief that her home was possessed. Having undertaken to inform the public-at-large, to whom she has no legal relationship, about the supernatural occurrences on her property, she may be said to owe no less a duty to her contract vendee.”

      There was a SNL skit last year with the premise that Gal Godot had just spent the 90s in Bosnia, never googles a date in advance to prevent spoiling a surprise, and winds up being on a date with OJ Simpson.

      This reminds me of that somewhat.Report

    2. “That house is haunted” is also a social phenomenon, and it appears that’s the factual basis that the court based it’s ruling on.

      I don’t expect courts to weigh in on whether there is such a thing as ghosts, but it’s pretty easy to base judgements on whether people believed there were ghosts and acted upon that belief.Report

    3. At the very least, you’d want to know in case those “Ghost Harassers” show type people showed up wanting to film. Or to know that your house is the one the local kids dare each other to play ding-dong-dash at.

      (Do kids still do that? Or am I stuck in the 1980s?)Report

  3. [L11] Sandra Day O’Connor also has the distinction of being the last person appointed to SCOTUS who didn’t graduate from either Harvard or Yale Law School, being Stanford Law class of ’52. This is a pet peeve of mine, how narrowly we cast our net for high court justices.Report

Comments are closed.