July 31st was the 50th anniversary of Elvis Presley’s seven-year run of 636 sold-old shows at The International Hotel and The Hilton in Las Vegas. August 16th was the 42nd anniversary of The King’s death.
Given Elvis’s place not only in music, but American culture at large, it is not surprising that he appears in many judicial decisions, in several forms. These include disputes over intellectual property rights, references to his songs and simply his place as a cultural icon.
Here are some of the many decisions where The King went to court:
Gentry v. Carnival Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64269 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2012): Addressing a motion to compel discovery, Judge Jonathan Goodman, of the Southern District of Florida, made this observation: “Counsel often assume that when opponents withhold documents upon a claim of privilege, that they do so because they are in fact sitting on a smoking gun. Consequently, counsel propounding discovery often suspect automatically that the opponent is asserting the work product doctrine because the adversary is trying to hide significant, adverse evidence.” Judge Goodman, as he is wont to do*, compared this situation to a rock song, here, Elvis’s 1969 chart-topping “Suspicious Minds,” which Judge Goodman noted includes this lyric: “We can’t go on together with suspicious minds, and we can’t build our dreams on suspicious minds.”
*Judge Goodman’s use of rock music references in his opinions -- including Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty -- has been discussed in prior issues of Coverage Opinions. In the October 11, 2017 issue of CO I declared him the “Hippest Federal Judge in America.”
Curtin v. Star Editorial, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Pa. 1998): The court, addressing a copyright dispute over certain photographs of Elvis, had these parting words: “We realize that this opinion is not likely to be music to the ears of either side. While we cannot stand in anyone's shoes, blue suede or otherwise, it is possible that the parties, as Elvis devotees, are lamenting ‘Don't Be Cruel’ and ‘you ain’t no friend of mine.’ It is not totally farfetched that they may be feeling ‘All Shook Up,’ or agonizing that this court is nothing but a ‘Heartbreak Hotel.’ The parties may even wish that this opinion be ‘Returned to Sender.’ Nonetheless, we, like a hound dog, must follow the law.”
Zoe v. Zoe, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub LEXIS 3078 (N.J. Super. Ct. Chancery Div. Jan. 23, 2014): In a custody case, a plaintiff-father alleged that the defendant-mother abused her parental discretion by taking their eleven year old daughter to a Pink concert. The father argued that the show was age-inappropriate due to alleged profanities in some of Pink’s songs and sexually suggestive themes and dance performances during the show. The court, six ways to Sunday, concluded otherwise.
The court noted: “Some of the most famous and time-honored names in rock music history were, in the 1950’s and 60’s, the subject of parental and cultural concern, social disapproval, and even direct censorship. Perhaps the most notorious example concerned Elvis Presley, now universally known as the King of Rock and Roll. As chronicled in Parental Advisory, Presley’s live performances and on-stage gyrations were in their early days considered highly controversial, and caused a great deal of consternation among adults convinced that he, his music, and his performances were obscene. Numerous concert promoters ‘washed their hands of the young King of Rock and Roll, fearing the repercussions of presenting the singer and his music.’ . . . [I]n 1955, Presley was threatened with arrest in Florida on obscenity charges if he gyrated onstage while performing his music. In 1956, officials in San Diego issued a warning to Presley that he would not be allowed to perform in the city unless he removed all dancing and gestures from his performance. In Presley’s 1957 television appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, cameramen were reportedly instructed to show the performer only from the waist up so that television audiences could not see Elvis’ gyrating hips.”
Patel v. Tex. Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015): In a decision addressing Texas cosmetology licensing, the Texas Supreme Court discussed the licensing distinction between cutting hair and shaving a beard: “Even the Attorney General of Texas got all shook up wondering whether Elvis’s famous sideburns ‘were hair which a cosmetologist might trim, or a partial beard which could be serviced only [by] a barber.” In a footnote: “(Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0211 (2000) ‘We think it likely that most observers would consider the sideburns worn by the late Elvis Presley at the time of his early success in 1956 as part of his hair. On the other hand, whether the muttonchops which adorned his face at the time of his death were hair which a cosmetologist might trim, or a partial beard which could be serviced only by a barber, is a question which in the absence of any articulated standard might well present difficulties to a cosmetologist who wished to remain within his or her licensed practice.’”).
Gibbons v. Arpaio, No. 07-1456 (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2017): A pre-trial detainee of a Maricopa County jail filed suit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in several ways, including his Eighth Amendment rights, on account of Arpaio’s policy of playing such songs as “I Fought the Law and Law Won,” and “Jailhouse Rock” at a loud volume over the public address system. The court denied the claim, concluding that “the broadcasting of music over the public address system might be deemed petty or insulting, but such actions also do not rise to the level of constitutional violations.”
Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998): In an opinion by, eh, Judge King, the court addressed whether The Velvet Elvis, a nightclub, infringed certain intellectual property rights owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. The club décor included a velvet painting of Elvis. The bar’s menu included “Love Me Blenders,” a type of frozen drink; Elvis’s favorite, peanut butter and banana sandwiches and a hot dog called “Your Football Hound Dog.” In addition, The Velvet Elvis’ advertisements included such phrases as “The King Lives,” “Viva la Elvis,” “Hunka-Hunka Happy Hour” and “Elvis has not left the building.”