From an opinion by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, describing a drunken party that led to a fight (with the great sentence in bold):
On June 12, 1996, at about 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., Duckett went to the home of Mary Carlson bearing his guitar and a 12-pack of beer. Duckett, Carlson, and her boyfriend, Mylo Hetler, spent the day drinking while Duckett and Carlson played music together. At some point, Duckett and Carlson decided to tape the music on Carlson’s daughter’s karoake machine. After a short break early in the evening, Duckett returned to Carlson’s home with his wife. Carlson’s neighbor, Sonny Zentner, and another friend, Rodney Miears, joined them. All continued drinking, while Duckett and Carlson continued to “jam” in the garage.As time went on, the comradery deteriorated in conjunction with the sobriety of the participants. Eventually, Carlson and Duckett argued about their respective talents, which culminated in Carlson’s order that the Ducketts leave the premises. Duckett and his wife left, but moments later returned in order to retrieve the musical tape so that no one could steal Duckett’s uncopyrighted original material.
It is undisputed that after Duckett and his wife returned to the garage, Carlson and Duckett’s wife engaged in a physical altercation . . .
People v. Duckett, 966 P.2d 941 (Wyo. 1998) (Taylor, J.).
What an effective sentence. It’s very short, and yet it paints a colorful picture. It also provides a sharp transition from the first paragraph describing the party to the next paragraph describing what led to the fight. I also liked the deadpan reference to the reason why the Ducketts returned. It strikes a vaguely amused but nonetheless serious tone that’s engaging to read.
(Oh, and I recognize that some think “comradery” should be spelled as “camaraderie” — more on that debate here — but I like the sentence either way.)
Kukulkan says:
I’m not an I.P. lawyer, but I thought copyright protection arises once copyrightable material is affixed to a tangible medium. Accordingly, Duckett’s original material would be entitled to copyright protection (e.g., it was copyrighted material) because it was recorded on tape.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 7:44 pmCalderon says:
Clearly, the line would have been better with the addition of one word:
“As time went on, the comradery obviously deteriorated in conjunction with the sobriety of the participants.”
(rimshot)
Quote
November 25, 2009, 7:47 pmT.J. Chiang says:
I concur with Kukulkan. State Supreme Court Justices are not expected to know federal copyright law, but should probably refrain from making wrong guesses about it.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 9:30 pmCornellian says:
“Comradery” looks weird, like the guess of a 10 year old at the proper spelling. I have always thought the proper spelling was “camaraderie.”
Quote
November 25, 2009, 10:22 pmOren says:
[Begin Quibble]
I don’t like “in conjunction” in this usage, although it’s clearly not incorrect since it is common to use it broadly to mean “at the same time & place” (as opposed to the narrower meaning of “act or instance of joining/joined objects”). This is probably a personal problem with the dilution of the word ‘conjunction’ rather than the construction of the sentence.
I would have substituted “in proportion” to mean what is intended — a relation specifying relative magnitudes. “The participants’ camaraderie decreased in proportion to their sobriety” just sounds much better to my ear.
[For those expecting an ending bracket, know that the quibbling never ends.]
Quote
November 25, 2009, 10:49 pmSkyler says:
Huh? I think you’re easily impressed, Orin.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 11:27 pmGCA says:
No genius I, but “in proportion” came immediately to my mind, as well. Both sounds better and means more. But shouldn’t it be inverse proportion?
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:00 amAnon Y. Mous says:
But who actually made the incorrect interpretation of copyright law? Was the State Justice making his own interpretation, or just passing along the (erroneous) interpretation of the Ducketts?
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:12 amOrin Kerr says:
Skyler, you forgot to say “obviously.”
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:24 amjiffy says:
I also thought “in conjunction” was jarring and wordy, but “in proportion” is little better. Why not just: “As time went on, the comradery deteriorated with the sobriety of the participants.”
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:36 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Great Line -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Black and Gregory Gelfond, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: A Great Line: From an opinion by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, describing a drunken party that led to a fight (.. http://bit.ly/71ltTd [...]
Robert says:
Haha, gotta love that lawyer speak.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 1:39 amFlash Gordon says:
I am a member of the Wyoming State Bar and I think it is cool that you noticed this case. The Wyoming Supremes typically give a full statement of facts in their opinions which I think most lawyers and the public appreciate. There are five justices on the Wyoming Supreme Court and there is no intermediate appellate court, so they are fairly busy. Not so busy, apparently, that they don’t have time to put some creative effort into their writing style.
The fight that broke out was a melee and the opinion gives a three paragraph blow by blow account of it.
In case anyone is curious, Duckett stabbed Hetler 8 times in an attempt to stop Hetler from beating Duckett’s wife. Duckett was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and the appeal was based on the trial court’s refusal to give a “defense of others” instruction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Duckett had presented sufficient evidence to justify him to an instruction on his theory of the case. The case was in Johnson County which is sort of ironic because the “Johnson County Wars” is a significant part of Wyoming historical lore.
I don’t know what happened at the re-trial. The case is a major precedent in self defense law in Wyoming.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:05 amJRL says:
Seems more like an example of trying too hard to be clever, and, inevitably, falling short.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:49 amCalderon says:
That’s a better description of most Judge Selya opinions; that guy really should put away the thesaurus.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 7:16 amWyoLawyer says:
I’m a member of the Wyoming Bar. I’ve obviously :-) never seen a case issued by the Wyoming Supreme Court captioned People v. Anybody. I believe the proper caption of the case at 966 P.2d 944 is “Duckett v. State”
I enjoy the Volokh Conspiracy very much. Keep it coming.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 9:29 amDavid McCourt says:
The sentence is servicable — just.
Camaraderie is misspelled; “in conjunction with” is latinate and too high-falutin’ a way to say “with” or “as” (and the suggested replacement “in proportion to” suffers from the same problem); sobriety doesn’t really “deteriorate”; and “participants” is rather colorless.
Other than that, it’s a great sentence. How about, off the top of my head, just the simple:
“The camaraderie ebbed as the drinks flowed.”
Please feel free to call it a turkey. Happy Thanksgiving.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 10:24 amFlash Gordon says:
WyoLawyer is correct. I didn’t focus on that. All criminal appeals in Wyoming are titled _____ v. State. I probably overlooked it because I also practice in Colorado where everything is People v. ______. Even lawyer discipline cases are titled People v. some hapless lawyer, although they should be titled Overzealous Disciplinary Counsel who couldn’t find a real job v. ________.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 10:51 amdrunkdriver says:
Well, goodness, everybody seems determined to rain on Orin’s parade today. I also thought it was a good sentence.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 10:54 amJC says:
It’s a horrible sentence. I couldn’t understand its intended meaning the first time I read it. I first thought it meant that the participants became more sober and started fighting. The phrase “in conjunction” is horribly unclear in this context. I’m very proud of fellow Conspirators for pointing out all the problems, and I’m especially proud that the very first comment pointed out the copyright law mistake.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:20 amOrin Kerr says:
Drunk Driver:
VC commenters have very high standards, at least for the bloggers: If several commenters don’t say you’re wrong, that just means it’s a closed thread. ;-)
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:24 amWyoLawyer says:
Obviously. And the rest of your post clearly explains why.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:38 amMalvolio says:
I was thinking “along with”, but Jiffy’s version is even better.
The Johnson County War, a tragedy wherein a minor dispute between immigrant settlers and the wealthy established ranchers flared up into one of the worst movies ever made.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:44 amLarryA says:
I like the original better. “In proportion” carries the connotation of a direct relationship, so that the first drink would impair camaraderie a bit, the next a bit more, until a fight results. “In conjunction” to me leaves open the reality that a little alcohol can enhance camaraderie, while a lot can impair it.
As far as the copyright issue goes, while the work was technically Duckett’s property, the copyright wasn’t registered. There was a reasonable possibility Carlson could have stolen it. However, I doubt the tune was worth the trouble it created.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:12 pmDavid McCourt says:
Wyolawyer, no need to personally attack JC. So far the arrows have been directed at sentences, not people, though it can’t have been much fun for Orin.
And JC has a point which reflects well on his understanding.
The writer is trying to create a parallel construction in which the (a) “camaraderie” “deteriorated” — that word — as the (b) “sobriety” “deteriorated.” But he doesn’t write “the camaraderie deteriorated as did the sobriety,” or something like it. Instead he uses an awkward and unclear phrase: the camaraderie deteriorated “in conjunction with” the sobriety. . . . The stutter step of misdirection that this gives many readers is one of the things that makes this sentence a poor one.
But we know what he means, you may say. Well, yes, but. . . . Try this thought experiment. What if the had written: “the camaraderie deteriorated in conjunction with the drunkenness of the participants”? Would you take it to mean anything other than what you took the original sentence to mean? I wouldn’t.
A sentence in which antonyms may be freely exchanged without altering the meaning is one which is not too well constructed.
I still think something like “the camaraderie ebbed as the drinks flowed” does the job better and more clearly, with no resort to multi-syllable “deteriorated“s or “conjunction“s.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 1:09 pmOren says:
What, judging cases from the other 3 Wyoming residents? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I suppose it’s not perfect. Now that it’s an option, I’m voting for David’s ebb/flow construction.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 1:16 pmWyoLawyer says:
Sorry,i forgot I was treading in the culture of Academia where the inhabitants take themselves so seriously. I won’t commit the faux pas of darkening those hallowed halls again.
As a final comment, if you think my comment was a personal attack, it’s obvious you grew up in a different neighborhood than I.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:36 pmDavid McCourt says:
WyoLawyer,
Jeeze, There’s no need to go off in a huff because I mildly suggested “there’s no need” to call JC dense when he wasn’t being dense. You can’t go around throwing short jabs if you’re going to have a glass jaw.
BTW, I’m no academic, and I bet I grew up in a smaller town than you did. But it was in NY, so I don’t get to do the “I’m just a country lawyer” schtick.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:51 pmRich Rostrom says:
There were six people there, and they got fighting drunk on one twelve-pack of beer?
If it was this stuff, maybe.
Otherwise, what a bunch of wimps.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 4:30 amdispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » fun sentences says:
[...] http://volokh.com/2009/11/25/a-great-lin… [...]
billhilly says:
You’ve got to figure on the altitude. Booze goes a might further at 10,000 ft.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 4:14 pm