Ghostbusters' Legal Arm: Taking a Genie to Task

It was reported over the weekend that a Saudi Arabian family is pursuing
litigation in a Shari'ah court against an unnamed genie. The complaint alleges
theft and harassment (including throwing objects). The family has relocated
their residence pending the outcome of the suit. Genies are represented in
Western culture as generous, amicable beings. Islamic theology, however,
describes genies as capable of being either good or evil.

The family is getting a pretty hard shake in this morning's news, but this
sounds remarkably like a Western poltergeist or haunting action. Yes - we have
them in the U.S., too.

In Stambovksy v. Ackley, the Court granted an equitable recission, relieving
plaintiff from performance under a contract to purchase real estate. The Court
found plaintiff, an out-of-town buyer, had no means to discover the house's
haunted reputation. A reputation and condition, the Court felt, the defendant
had created over time. And that whether the haunting was "parapsychic or
psychogenic," the defendant was estopped from contesting the ghosts; "as a
matter of law, the house [was] haunted." This reputation caused a dimunition in
the house's value, and went to the heart of the contract. The Court returned
plaintiff's down payment.

In Hansen v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue (n. 1), plaintiffs sought tax relief, arguing
their First Amendment Establishment rights were violated by a "demonic"
government computer system acting within Biblical prophecies. Procedurally, the
complaint failed, because the plaintiffs named non-governmental parties as
defendants, and separately, because the Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit
seeking money damages against a state. In dicta, the Court addressed the
substance of plaintiff's complaint, assuring plaintiffs the computer system
named "Lucifer" did not constitute government endorsement of a particular
religion.

And "the" fallen angel himself has been named as defendant in a suit. In U.S. ex
rel. Mayo v. Satan & His Staff, plaintiff alleged a violation of his civil
rights; that the defendant had caused him "misery" and his ultimate "downfall."
The Court denied the in forma pauperis request, and indicated the action was not
one upon which relief could be granted. The Court reasoned that personal
jurisdiction over the defendant was questionable, and further, was not plead in
the complaint. The Court also wondered whether it was more appropriate to
proceed with the litigation as a class action.