Freddy v. Jason
You know you've been doing to much work when you look at an advertisement, miss one letter from the text, and immediately think, "That would make a good legal brief." With no further ado:
Freddy v. Jason
Supreme Court of the State of California, 2003
Mr. Freddy Kreuger: Damned soul intent on revenge upon the children of Elm Street
'Jason': Deranged man of no fixed address, assumed to be fixated on hockey and farm implements
Verdict was entered in favor of Mr. Krueger. The case came before the Supreme Court when 'Jason' did not so much appeal to the intermediate appelate courts as chop the three judge panel into interchangeable parts.
The Facts of the Case
Mr. Krueger claimed that as a matter of common and traditional law, he was entitled to a monopoly upon maiming, mutilation, and murder of the children of Elm Street, up until the seventh generation or the twenty-third sequel, whichever was to come first. He alleged monetary damages and requested an injunction against 'Jason' to prevent any further encroachments upon his domain.
The Legal Issues
- As a matter of common law, does an oath of vengeance made just before being burnt to death entitle one to a legally enforceable monopoly on maiming, mutilation, and murder, or is such an oath enforceable only directly by the one so sworn?
- As a matter of common law, does having a greater number of sequels and a greater body count entitle an 'agent of greater evil' to concurrent claims to territory, even if there is no reason (other than box office necessity in the silly summer season) for a territorial overlap?
The court held for the plaintiff, on two grounds:
- First, that it was in the interests of the state of California (and most particularly in the interests of the three judge panel ever getting a good night's sleep again) that oaths of vengeance be enforced 'up unto the extent practicable under the law.'
- Second, that any claim of 'concurrent domain' was untenable due to the mask of 'Jason' having been worn by several different actors, each to whom the body or sequel count in question should be attributed.
Any comments from the peanut gallery? (Man, if my law professors read this I'm never going to be able to hold my head up again...)