Posts Tagged ‘court’
• The court found Swanson’s TV Dinners inedible, so they issued Swanson’s a gag order.
The Supreme Food Court at the CIA (The Culinary Institute of America) has a full menu of cases this session. They include the following noteworthy disputes and their abstracts:
- Kevin Bacon v. Meat Loaf – Case to decide who’s the Alpha Carnivore
- Pringles v. United States Sawdust Corporation – A case in which US Sawdust seeks recompense or at least some credit for providing half of the ingredients in Pringles “Potato” Chips.
- Mr. Coffee v. Mrs. Butterworth – One glorious night of frolicking on the kitchen counter between a sweetly seductive Mrs. Butterworth and a highly caffeinated Mr. Coffee led to the birth of their little Baby Ruth. The question now arises: Who’s going to pay for Baby Ruth’s support? Until the case is resolved Baby Ruth has been placed in the temporary custody of Aunt Jemima – which in this case is located on the 2nd shelf of the cabinet nearest the sink.
- Venus Fly Trap v. Flies – Should be an open and shut case
- Yam v. Sweet Potato – Case to decide if they’re the same vegetable – you never see them in the same produce section at the same time. The court expects Plant Psychologists to give expert testimony on schizophrenia in root vegetables.
- Pepperidge Farms Mint Milano Cookies v. Alyssa Milano – Pepperidge Farms alleges “Unconscious copyright infringement” on the part of Ms. Milano. In order to eliminate further confusion between its cookie and Ms. Milano, Pepperidge Farm seeks to compel Ms. Milano to rename herself either Alyssa Marzipan or Alyssa Xanthan Gum. Ms. Milano’s is reluctant to comply stating, “Who’s the boss?” Tony Danza has filed a friend of the court brief stating: “I speak for millions of Americans when I say that there is no confusion here. If you put the two of them side by side there’s only one of them you’d want to eat.”
- The Estate of Clarence Birdseye v. The People of the United States – The estate of Clarence Birdseye contends that the idea of freezing ffood or future consumption was theirs and theirs alone. Consequently they seek redress in the form of a 1¢ royalty on all food items frozen after 1953. Critics believe the case doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. Birdseye lawyers claim it does have a snowball’s chance in a freezer.
- Faberge Eggs v. Egg Beaters – Faberge Eggs believes the existence of Egg Beaters is an affront to all hard-shelled ova everywhere. Faberge wonders why marauding gangs of Egg Beaters are still allowed to roam the dairy case with impunity as they wantonly crack shells and otherwise beat up on their oval brethren is an outrage. They find this brand of “egg on egg” violence unacceptable. “These are not good eggs,” says an attorney for the firm of Humpty and Dumpty. Faberge Eggs seek redress in the form of having all Egg Beaters confined to their cartons until breakfast time, when they’ll have their contents poured onto a skillet and fried rigid till they’re no longer a threat to anyone. In its defense, Egg Beaters lamented, “It’s not the way we’d choose to behave, it’s just the way General Foods makes us.”
- Pillsbury Toaster Strudel v. Kellogg’s Pop Tarts – Convenience breakfast food turf battle heats up as Pop Tarts assert its claim as the original toaster pastry. Toaster Strudel’s attorneys intend employ the nuclear option and play the “Eggo Waffle card” if Pop Tarts maintain its exclusive right to dub itself the one and only original toaster pastry. Counsel for Toaster Strudel are incredulous at Pop Tarts duplicity – i.e., “How can Pop Tarts honestly maintain they hold exclusive rights to the ‘toaster pastry’ name when their own company manufactures a similar product – the Eggo Toaster Waffle? It seems Pop Tarts wants to have their waffle and eat it too. We say never. We say Leggo my Eggo.”
- Honda v. Hyundai (I know not food related, but it was the only court date they could get)
- Benadryl v. Peanut Farmers of America – Benadryl seeks to neutralize Peanut Farmers’ effort to impose their legumes on an unsuspecting public. Thus far the Peanut Farmers’ lawyers have been tentative in coming out of their shells.
- Parsnip v. Turnip – This case is being closely watched by the Dirt Farmers of Appalachia, that will determine which tuber possesses the more bodacious ta-tas. This landmark ruling will decide once and forever whether a Parsnip or a Turnip has the best nips. The winner gets the tuber concession at Dollywood.
- Margarine v. Butter – Margarine seeks a cease and desist order against Butter’s derogatory assertion that: If you think it’s butter, but it’s snot…It’s Chiffon.
- Darryl Strawberry v. Halle Berry – Case is being watched berry, berry closely.
In summation, I don’t know how nutritious this amuse bouche is, but I do know one thing: It is food for thought.
Food Court Rulings 2018: Case Histories
World Food Court at The Hague
Mrs. Dalrymple vs Gerber Baby Food
Mrs. Dalrymple complained her baby’s strained peas were too chunky.
The World Food Court found in favor of Mrs. D. agreeing that indeed the peas were too chunky. To remedy the defect, the Food Court issued Gerber a restraining order.
Mall of America Food Court vs KFC
Mall of America Food Court found Kentucky Fried Chicken guilty of frequent and regular battery of its fried chicken. Exasperated KFC’s lawyers responded by asking the food court, “How else are we supposed to coat the damn birds if we can’t batter them?” Mall of America Food Court was unswayed by the argument and ordered KFC to pay $1 million to fund a Home for Battered Chicken.
Boise Food Court vs MacDonald’s Restaurant Corporation
Boise Food Court accused MacDonald’s of perpetrating repeated a salt on its French Fries. MacDonald’s contends the sodium-enhancing act was consensual and essential to the flavor of its deep-fried spuds. Boise Food Court disagreed and issued a No So Dium Order of Cessation.
Sarasota Food Court vs Minute Maid Orange Juice
Sarasota Food Court found Minute Maid Orange Juice’s pulp very thinly scattered and generally unfocused. As a remedy the Sarasota Food Court required that Minute Maid Orange Juice concentrate.
Talladega Race Track Food Court vs The Milk Advisory Board
The City Fathers of Talladega requested the Milk Advisory Board to change the labeling on their cartons from Homogenized Milk to Heterogenized Milk. They cited a citizenry “uncomfortable” drinking from anything with the word “Homo” on it.
The Milk Advisory Board summarily refused the remedy claiming the Talladega Food Court was acting lactose intolerantly.
Milwaukee County Stadium Food Court vs Miller Brewing Company
Issued an injunction barring Miller Brewing Company from referring to its calorie-reduced beer as “Lite.” Milwaukee Food Court required Miller to call this diluted beer what it really is: Diet Beer. “What’s next,” Miller’s lawyers complained, “making it a requirement to pronounce each letter in the name ‘Worcestershire Sauce’?”
Yankee Stadium Food Court vs Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream
In the case of Yankee Stadium Food Court vs Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream, the Food Court held that Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream’s in-stadium advertising claim that “You scream, I scream, we all scream for ice cream,” was extravagant, fatuous and irredeemably self-serving – even though the ice cream itself was not self-serve (a legally semantic thicket).
After Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream pleaded nolo contendre to overstating their case of patrons “screaming” for ice cream, the Court required Haagen-Dazs to tone themselves down. Specifically the remedy barred Haagen-Dazs from claiming anything more than “Ice cream is a desirable treat that perhaps many, but not all enjoy. And although consumers of the frozen confection might request it in a voluble manner, rarely is it ordered while screaming.”
Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream is appealing the ruling to a higher court: The Court of Public Opinion.
In summation, I don’t know how nutritious this amuse bouche was, but I do know one thing: It is food for thought.