In which I am amused by a court ruling

Over the years following US politics, I've read a number of court rulings for one reason or another. Most of them have been pretty straightforward, and frankly quite boring. Others, however, have either been brilliantly written, amusing, or contained some surprising passages.

In the comments to this post over at Lawyers, Guns and Money someone linked to a ruling (.pdf), which was interesting because it dealt with frivolous lawsuits, but not particular noteworthy in its language, until I came to this particular passage:

This Court is quite sure that, if the villagers who heard the boy
cry "wolf" one time too many had some form of reassurance that the
boy's last cry was sincere, they would have responded
appropriately and he would be alive instead of being dinner for the
ravenous canine. If anything, that story teaches that repetitious
tomfoolery can result in disaster for the knave. This Court will not turn
a deaf ear to Plaintiff's future cries. However, it will require Plaintiff to
structure his pleas for help in a more sincere manner so that the
energies of the villagers are not wasted on the repeated runs up the
grassy hill atop which the mischievous boy sits laughing.

Isn't it a joy to see such language when dealing with a serious issue?

Of course, the best ruling I've ever read, is Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..