When judges turn to Christmas movies for help
In Skala v. Edlich (2002), a New York court was confronted with a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent. The court cited as precedent People of the State of New York v. Kris Kringle, which was tried in the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. (Photo from MovieStillsDB)
’Tis the season for the staple of classic Christmas movies. They leave lasting memories for everyone—and for some judges, that includes calling them back for assistance when deciding cases.
Carlos Serna-Lopez was convicted by a Colorado jury of robbery using a deadly weapon. On appeal, he argued that the prosecutor lacked evidence that the BB pistol he’d employed can cause serious bodily injury.
A state appeals court, in People v. Serna-Lopez (2023), despite the defendant’s argument to the contrary, concluded that an expert witness had not been required to explain the nature of injury that a BB gun can cause.
In People v. Serna-Lopez (2023), despite a defendant’s argument to the contrary, a state appeals court, instead of needing specialized testimony, relied on a well-known admonition in 1983 film A Christmas Story. (Photo from MovieStillsDB)
Much simpler proof was available. The tribunal, instead of needing specialized testimony, relied on the well-known admonition in A Christmas Story. The court recalled the 1983 film, where Ralphie Parker was desperate to find a BB gun—as fans know, an official Red Ryder, carbine action, 200-shot range air rifle with a compass in the stock—under the tree. But he had been warned by his mother, a teacher and Santa Claus, “You’ll shoot your eye out.”
Annie Davis of Indiana filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. She sought to keep her creditors from getting $8,000 in life insurance proceeds she received following her husband’s death. The bankruptcy trustee argued that this was an inappropriate exemption.
An Indiana bankruptcy court disagreed—and saw the case involving much more than Davis’ situation; rather, it was one, the court stated, that “plays out on a much larger stage.” Its rationale for allowing Davis to retain the life insurance proceeds included a scene from It’s a Wonderful Life. In the 1946 film, George Bailey, hoping to keep his savings and loan afloat, turned to the cruel Henry Potter for a loan. But all Bailey had for collateral was $500 in equity in a life insurance policy. Potter scoffed, calling it a “miserable little” asset.
Jimmy Stewart was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life. (Photo by Keith Srakocic/The Associated Press)
The judge in In re Davis (2015) saw its value differently. In ruling for the widow, he stated, “There are many, many George Baileys in Indiana. … To those George Baileys, the benefits received from a life insurance policy, even a small death benefit … are a lifeline to surviving spouses and families.”
In Skala v. Edlich (2002), a New York court was confronted with a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent. One issue was whether the tenants had abandoned the premises. In concluding that they had, the judge observed that several court notices sent to the tenants had been returned by the Post Office marked “Return to sender. Moved left no address. Unable to forward.”
The court cited as precedent People of the State of New York v. Kris Kringle, which was tried in the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. The court decided that “if the Post Office can be used as conclusive proof to establish the existence of Santa Claus,” then the information provided by the Post Office was “uncontroverted evidence that the [tenants] have abandoned the premises.”
In Texas v. U.S. (2016), a judge concluded that federal prosecutors made false statements to the court concerning the implementation of immigration rules. To demonstrate that the government attorneys should have known better, the Texas federal judge turned to the same trial of Kris Kringle.
The jurist recalled the testimony of a young boy on the witness stand. When the child was asked whether he knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, he replied: “Gosh, everybody knows you shouldn’t tell a lie, especially in court.”
While “the need to tell the truth, especially in court, was obvious” to this youngster, the court observed that “there are certain attorneys in the Justice Department who apparently have not received that message.”
In Hardesty v. Hamburg Township (2006), the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that officers’ entry into a home had been permissible. A dissenting judge referenced the 1990 holiday film Home Alone. (Photo from MovieStillsDB)
A father and son sued municipal parties alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated when police officers entered their home without a warrant. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hardesty v. Hamburg Township (2006), concluded that the officers’ entry into the home had been permissible.
One of the issues was whether anyone was home at the time of the entry. A dissenting judge explained that the question is not always so simple. He recalled that in the 1990 holiday film Home Alone, Macaulay Culkin’s character, an 8-year old boy, was able to outwit passers-by, convincing them that he was “not home alone by using radios, televisions, lights and cardboard cutouts.”
For some judges looking for guidance, big screen Christmas classics have been a gift.
Randy Maniloff is an attorney at White and Williams in Philadelphia and an adjunct professor at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. He runs the website CoverageOpinions.info.
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.
