Statutory Interpretation of the Day

We’re slogging through another provision of the Uniform Probate Code today, and I wanted to share some of the joy. My favorite section so far: UPC 2-603(b)(4)

If the will creates an alternative devise with respect to a devise for which a substitute gift is created by paragraph (1) or (2), the substitute gift is superseded by the alternative devise only if an expressly designated devisee of the alternative devise is entitled to take under the will.

If your response to that is not “eh?” You are a much smarter person than I am. I diagrammed the sentence and have concluded that it doesn’t mean anything.

I'm not making this up.

This is the jurisprudence outline we were given in class today as a course overview. Some would argue that it's pretty representative of the course, actually. The random date in the lower third on the right is a copyright notice. I think.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

From my Tax Policy book (Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Debate over Taxes): [T]he AMT will likely end up becoming a contentious political football. ... Still, at some point there must be a limit to how much unnecessary complexity politicians are willing to impose on the middle class for the sake of scoring political points.

Shall we assume we've made our word quota?

From McQuade v. Stoneham:

We will assume that Stoneham put him out when he might have retained him, merely in order to get rid of him.

So does the court win the case?

From Angel v. Angel, a child custody case out of Ohio:

Neither counsel cited any authority for their respective contentions nor alluded to the Ohio Statutes relating to care, custody and control of minor children. This imposes an unfair burden on the Court.

Did you tell the SEC about your lemonade stand?

From Business Associations:

…[T]he securities laws apply to lots of things that don’t look very much like securities at first glance. For example, investments in worm farms.

Only effective way I can think of

From Business Associations:

It is perhaps a cheap way of getting your attention, but it is nevertheless worth pointing out that securities regulation issues reportedly are the single most common source of legal malpractice claims against business lawyers.

You were really gonna cite that?

From a 1968 2nd Circuit case (our friend Judge Friendly, who else?), discussing the foreseeability of a drunk sailor stupidly sinking a boat:

Moreover, the proclivity of seamen to find solace for solitude by copious resort to the bottle while ashore has been noted in opinions too numerous to warrant citation.