91ÊÓƵ

(Editor’s note: This piece originally ran in the May 5, 2011, issue of the BrieflyLegal e-newsletter)

Geordie Duckler is a Tigard animal law attorney who collects case cites as a hobby. This week, he dug into his archives to pull up cases from 1941 and 1982.

Skin Deep?: The use of cosmetics is apparently constitutionally protected: “Following the ancient tradition of her sex the modern dame or damsel, viewing with dismay the incipient extra chin or tiny crowfoot, marking the plodding progress of Father Time, is impelled to erect bunkers of defense armed to withstand the inevitable assault. All of this is lawful and within the realm of inalienable rights classically defined as the “pursuit of happiness.”  – Whitcomb v. Emerson, 46 CA2d 263 (Cal. App. 4th 1941).

Snack-nicking sneak:  Likely the meanest landlord in recorded history: “In defense of its exclusionary policy, the landlord’s apartment manager testified that the decision to bar families with children rested in part on a number of past instances in which young tenants had engaged in annoying or potentially dangerous activities [including] the attempted solicitation of snacks from the landlord’s office staff.” – Marina Point Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 C3d 721 (Cal. App. 4th 1982).