<p style="text-align: justify;">When you think of the inside of a courtroom, you picture a place where unfortunate and serious problems are being contested. Perhaps, you think the case involves neighbours with their music too loud or family members trying to get one over the other in a<a href="https://www.legacywills.co.uk"> Will case</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">But, at times, it’s a lot more peculiar and downright funnier than that. If you don’t believe us, check out Judge Rinder!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Often, the weirdest court cases are the ones law students end up remembering, since they’re the ones which legislation did not prepare for and so subsequently they brought up issues and questions that weren’t faced previously.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this article, we’ll walk you through some of the oddest and funniest cases that’ll surely leave you scratching your head!</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><b>Jackson v/s Miller</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">By the looks of it, this case might not seem that electrifying! Long story short- the Millers moved to a house next to a cricket pitch and whined regarding the trouble of cricketers playing and the ball landing in their backyard. The filled a case in the court to prevent players from playing there. Well, they were ultimately turned down – no guesswork required!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Nonetheless, this is one such case where every lawyer can cite at least one judgment. The case opens, “During summers, cricket in village is the enjoyment for everyone. Roughly, every village has its own ground where young boys play. In Lintz, located in<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Durham"> Country Durham</a>, the village has its cricket field where they’ve played for the past 70 years. They tend it well&#8230;” and goes on in the same streak, with the judge pondering whether the cattle that used to graze well before a house was built ever condemned to cricket.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The final statement of the case gives away a funny end: “Soon after the case, the Millers moved their house.”</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><b>PepsiCo v/s Leonard</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In the year 1999, Pepsi came up with an advertisement in the US regarding a points’ plan, where a teen shows up in a Harrier jump jet along with the text- “HARRIER FIGHTER 7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS” An innovative 21 year old thought that he can buy those points for 10c each, he sent a cheque for $700,008.50 to get the needed points. When Pepsi denied his claim which was worth nearly $23m, he filed a case in the court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately, Leonard’s claim was cast off by the court saying one can’t take an advert seriously. Yet, the court’s observation made a source of pokerfaced humour, with a comment like, “The naïve teen showed in the advert is a highly dubious pilot, who can hardly be trusted with his parents’ car keys.”</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><b>Re A (Conjoined Twins)</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This was a case in England that took place in the year 2001 where twins – Rosie and Gracie – were born joined, with Rosie counting on Gracie for the supply of oxygenated blood. Surgery could separate them, but only Gracie had the possibility of surviving whereas Rosie would die. But, if they weren’t separated, both of them wouldn’t be able to see their 1st birthday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At first, the judge said that separating them wouldn’t be considered as murder, but as ‘passive euthanasia’, though this ruling was cast off by the Court of Appeal. Rather. They quarrelled that the defence of need can be used and the doctor won’t have “<a href="https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law.../mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html">mens rea</a>” (unlawful intent entailing guilt) for murder, since he’d be conducting an operation to save Gracie and not to murder Rosie. The operation was conducted successfully and Gracie is now a teen aspiring to become a doctor.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><b>Emmett v/s Hollywood Silver Fox Farm</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Have you ever been annoyed by a neighbour who intentionally turned up their music too loud? If yes, then you’ve got to thank the Hollywood Silver Fox Farm for the fact that you are right and they aren’t.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">But with this case, it wasn’t really about music being too loud. Here, the neighbour – Emmett – had come to blows with the owner of Hollywood Silver Fox Farm and tried to interrupt their dealing of procreating silver foxes for the fur producing industry.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A<a href="https://thoughtcatalog.com/alana-kay/2013/.../the-6-sexiest-silver-foxes-alive-right-no.."> silver fox</a> is an incredibly edgy creature and is likely to miscarry if disrupted during pregnancy. So, Emmett sent his son to fire gunshots repetitively between the fox farm’s procreating pens and his land, to disturb the <a href="http://piesiecreativity.com">foxes and their business</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In the court, Emmett shielded his action by saying the foxes were oddly receptive and he had could use his land in a sensible manner. However, the court ruled it out saying, “no one has the right to create noises on their own land, since the rights given by the law has laid down its condition that it mustn’t be done to the annoyance of the neighbours.” Thank goodness for that one!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">So, there we have it! As mindboggling as these cases might seem, they’re all real!</p>

The 4 Most Bizarre And Absurd Lawsuits That Made It To Court
