Nix v Hedden [1] cracks me up every time it gets referenced. "Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheles

Nix v Hedden [1] cracks me up every time it gets referenced. "Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheless, they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert." "Both the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper.[5] Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot and bean." Toy Biz v United States [2] is another great one, especially if you're a nerd (like me) who loves reading the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (e.g. https://twitter.com/asciimike/status/1258780502837932035 https://twitter.com/asciimike/status/1258780502837932035). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz,_Inc._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz,_Inc._v._United_States