Anonymous English case from 1319
[Can a monk be held liable for his actions if he is considered legally "dead"?  This case from the Year Books is in law French and presents the arguments of each lawyer, followed by a judge's opinion, and a comment by the reporter.  Many of the reports from this period were written by students and were meant to be used as learning devices]

Godfrey v. Godfrey (1470)
[Who is responsible when someone's cattle leave the King's highway and trample someone else's land?  Should the landowner have erected a fence?  This case is represented in three French reports, a record in Latin, and English translations]

Hawes v. Davye (1565)
[A case in Law French, with some English and Latin thrown in for good measure.  Clearly, the French of the lawyers is getting worse, and the bond under discussion was drafted in English]

Mylward v. Weldon (1596, Chancery)
[A famous case in which a hole was cut in an overly long pleading and the offender's head placed through it]

Dacy v. Clinch (King's Bench, 1673)
[Is it defamatory to say that someone "is a witch, and deserves to be hanged..."?  That is the focus of this case in decaying Law French.  And what if someone pleads that " As sure as God governs the world, and King James this kindom, so sure hath J.S. committed treason"--does he have to prove that God governs this world to prevail?
    During the Commonwealth, all cases were required by statute to be in English.  The monarchy was restored in 1660, the Puritan statutes were repealed, and some lawyers reverted to using Law French, as this case reflects.  By the end of the century, however, Law French had gasped its last breath.]

Holy Trinity Church v. United States (U.S. Sup. Ct., 1892)
[A U.S. Supreme Court case on the interpretation of statutes, immigration, and the importance of religion]

Meyer v. Nebraska (U.S. Sup. Ct., 1923)
[An important American Supreme Court case on language rights, dealing with a Nebraska statute (enacted during the World War I) that made it illegal to teach foreign languages to young children]

Eu Cong Eng v. Trinidad (U.S. Sup. Ct., 1926)
[Another Supreme Court case invalidating a Philippine law requiring merchants (most of whom were Chinese) to keep their books of account in English, Spanish, or a Philippine language]

Dorman v. Satti (U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, 1988)
[Reviewing Connecticut's Hunter Harassment Law and holding that the term "harass" was overly vague]

State v. Ball (Connecticut Supreme Court, 1993)
[Discussing the Hunter Harassment Law after the general term "harass" had been replaced by a more specific list of prohibited actions and an intent requirement]

Free v. Peters (U.S. Court of Appeals)
[Upholding death penalty despite survey evidence that jury did not fully understand jury instructions regarding mitigation]

Ruiz v. Hull (Arizona Sup. Ct., 1998)
[An important language rights case; Arizona Supreme Court invalidated that state's English-Only law, one of the most restrictive such laws in the United States]

Buchanan v. Angelone (U.S. Supreme Court, 1998)
[Upholding death penalty of Virginia inmate and holding that jury would have understood instructions on mitigation despite extremely poorly drafted jury instruction (as pointed out by the dissent).  In a later case that is now before the Court, involving another defendant who was sentenced to death under the same instruction, the jury actually came back to the judge and asked for clarification on the role of mitigation; the judge refused to do so.  This latter case, Weeks v. Angelone, may be a very important precedent--one way or the other--on the comprehensibility of jury instructions in death penalty cases]