We here at Blueprint LSAT Prep like to keep you informed. And not just about law school admissions and LSAT stuff, but also the goings on in the world of law.
Legal cases sometimes make their way into the news, usually because a famous person is involved, but sometimes, and this is pretty rare, no celebrities are involved and the case is just so weird and crazy-sounding readers will click on the headline anyway. This past week there were three such stories: suing your parents for tuition, upskirting and blackout gambling. Let’s do a recap!
Attention: Eighteen-year-old private school rebels! Rachel Canning of New Jersey tried suing her parents for the cost of her tuition and her future college education. How does that happen? Well, her parents cut her off financially. She said she was kicked out of the house, but her dad argues she voluntarily moved out, “because she didn’t want to follow their house rules concerning curfew and chores.” No word on what her bedtime was, but suing your parents or taking out the trash is a tough call.
Attention: Ladies and Scottish men who use public transportation in Massachusetts! The state’s highest court ruled a man (Michael Roberston, Instagram account N/A) did not violate the state’s peeping tom law when he took cellphone photos up the skirts of women on the Boston subway. The Court reasoned that the law, “Does not penalize the secret photographing of partial nudity, but of ‘a person who is … partially nude.” So basically, unless your private parts are in plain view (and going commando is not plain view) secret photos are okay in MA. That was until two days after the ruling when lawmakers approved legislation to ban upskirting. So, the loopholes are now closed but MA subway riders should keep their legs closed too, just to be safe.
Attention: Cross-section of alcoholics and gambling addicts! A California man, Mark A. Johnson “baller extraordinaire,” is seeking to nullify a gambling debt of $500,000 he incurred during an epic Vegas blackout. Johnson alleges he was too drunk to be allowed to gamble over a 17-hour period at the Downtown Grand Las Vegas Hotel & Casino where he lost half a mil at blackjack and pai gow. He admits to consuming 10 adult beverages prior to stepping foot in the casino and estimates he was served an additional 20 more complimentary adult beverages while gambling. Nevada gaming regulations prohibit casinos from “permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity” and from providing “complimentary service of intoxicating beverages in the casino area to persons who are visibly intoxicated.” Added to the mix, Johnson alleges that the casino host was aware that his meds increased the intoxicating effects of booze. My thoughts on the matter: 30 drinks and popping pills, this guy is lucky he didn’t marry a stripper and get punched out by Mike Tyson. Casinos shouldn’t take advantage of drunks, and drunks shouldn’t be able to renege on loans. I’m thinking they’ll settle.
If you know of any other strange legal cases that made their way into the news recently, let us know!