Chamberlain v. Fuller (1887) 9 a. 832

"No rogue should enjoy his ill-gotten plunder for the simple reason that his victim is by chance a fool."

Eastern Trust & Banking Co. v. Cunningham (1908) 103 Me. 455

"[W]here one carelessly relies upon a pretence [sic] of inherent absurdity and incredibility, upon mere idle talk, or upon a device so shadowy as not to be capable of imposing upon anyone, he must bear his misfortune, if injured.... But...if one intentionally misrepresents to another facts particularly within his own knowledge, with an intent that the other shall act upon them...he cannot afterwards excuse himself by saying "[y]ou were foolish to believe me.""

Bixler v. Wright (1917) 116 Me. 133

"The law dislikes negligence. It seeks properly to make the enforcement of men's rights depend in very considerable degree upon whether they have been negligent in conserving and protecting their rights. But the law abhors fraud. And when it comes to an issue whether fraud shall prevail or negligence, it would seem that a court of justice is quite as much bound to stamp out fraud as it is to foster reasonable care."

Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337

"[F]raud is proved when it is shewn that a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I have treated the second and third as distinct cases, I think the third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement being fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its truth.... [I]f fraud be proved...[i]t matters not that there was no intention to cheat or injure.... [I]f I thought that a person making a false statement had shut his eyes to the facts or purposely abstained from inquiring into them, I should hold that honest belief was absent, and that he was just as fraudulent as if he had knowingly stated that which was false...." - Lord Herschell

Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Manufacturing Co. (1918) 248 F. 853

"There are some kinds of talk which no sensible man takes seriously, and if he does he suffers from his credulity. If we were all scrupulously honest, it would not be so; but, as it is, neither party usually believes what the seller says about his own opinions, and each knows it. Such statements, like the claims of campaign managers before election, are rather designed to allay the suspicion which would attend their absence than to be understood as having any relation to objective truth." - L. Hand

What Dean/Prof Kelley just said in class... #2

"It's good to be king; it's even better to be on the Supreme Court."

What Dean/Prof Kelley just said in class...

"I don't do math, calculators do math, but I do do my own taxes, so that's a little scary...and I balance my checkbook by hand because I heard if you do math like that you won't get Alzheimer's, so we'll have to see how that goes."

that's not a perfect quote, but it's close...

Champion v. Ames (1903) 188 U.S. 321

"As a state may, for the purpose of guarding the morals of its own people, forbid all sales of lottery tickets within its limits, so Congress, for the purpose of guarding the people of the United States against the "widespread pestilence of lotteries" and to protect the commerce which concerns all the states, may prohibit the carrying of lottery tickets from one state to another."

Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991) 572 N.Y.S. 672

"From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: "Who you gonna' call?" as a title song to the movie "Ghostbusters" asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structrual engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale. It portends that the prudent attorney will establish an escrow account lest the subject of the transaction come back to haunt him and his client--to pray that his malpractice insurance coverage extends to supernatural disasters. In the interest of avoiding such untenable consequences, the notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest."

"Smith, J., dissenting.
...[I]f the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court."