Comments on: Teri Smith Tyler v. Carter, pro se

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:30:46 +0000

I discuss the case further on Overlawyered Dec. 25.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:44:32 +0000

Nobody ever accused me of not having a sense of humor, but I don’t find this case nearly as funny as you guys. This isn’t a frivolous case like women who claim that “Eenie Meenie Minie Moe” should get them money; this is a case where the plaintiff is obviously an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:10:28 +0000

There are two important points about this case: 1) it's age helps demonstrate how rare such silly pro se cases are in reality; 2) the Judge Haight did the right thing -- he threw the case out sua sponte as frivolous, noting "A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense."

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:15:12 +0000

The classics never get old.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:06:26 +0000

I think I'm the one responsible for popularizing this case, first posting about it on Usenet on January 21, 1994, ten weeks after the case came out. Someone took the trouble to type it in (in the pre-linking days, sneakerware was the only way to provide court cases on the Internet) on alt.conspiracy in response to my post, and I then copied it to the old LAWSCH-L list on January 24, 1994.