While Ben Glatstein is recognizing great analogies in legal reasoning, might I submit the following as entitled to top ten recognition? It's from Seiber v. Pettitt, 49 A. 763 (Pa. 1901), a lawsuit for "criminal conversation," which is the sexual "debauching" of another man's wife. This is just amazing:
One can only hope to some day be judged by a voice so deific, in the shadow of mankind's oldest precedent, the Lord's first injunction.
There is also the whole eating from the tree of knowledge metaphor to kick around. But seriously, wasn't there also an action for ejectment? And honestly, what's with the whole strict liability for eating apples thing?
Posted by: Armen at March 19, 2005 03:14 AMBack in 1951 in my Criminal Law course, I first heard of "Criminal Conversation" and wondered why, with the First Amendment speech clause, there would be a crime involved with talking about it. But, I learned, this conversation could be soundless, except for the "ohs" and "ahs" and the "yes, yes, yes"es.
Posted by: Shag from Brookline at March 19, 2005 07:14 AM