from Favrot v. Barnes, a 1970s divorce case before the Louisiana Supreme Court:
"...at the husband's insistence, they agreed to limit sexual intercourse to about once a week. The husband asserts, as divorce-causing fault, that the wife did not keep this agreement but shought coitus thrice daily."This case inspired my contracts professor, an Oxford graduate from Kansas who pretty much fits the stereotype of what a law school professor should look and act like, to go into a long and involved hypothetical featuring (I'm not lying about this) penal-vaginal intercourse, missionary position, oral sex, dildos, butt plugs and threesomes.
Meanwhile, the Civil Procedure has these nuggets, from actual cases, borrowed (and reprinted here without permission) from Richard Lederer's Anguished English:
Q: Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?
A: No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.
Q: Mr. Smith, do you believe that you are emotionally unstable?
A: I should be.
Q: How many times have you committed suicide?
A: Four times.
Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.
And lastly, this, from Professor Richard Friedman:
The Court: Next Witness.
Ms. Olschner: Your Honor, at this time I would like to swat Mr. Buck in the head with his client's deposition.
The Court: You mean read it?
Ms. Olschner: No, sir. I mean to swat him [in] the head with it. Pursuant to Rule 32, I may use the deposition "for any purpose" and that is the purpose for which I want to use it.
The Court: Well, it does say that.
The Court: There being no objection, you may proceed.
Ms. Olschner: You may proceed.
(Whereupon Ms. Olschner swatted Mr. Buck in the head with a deposition).
Mr. Buck: But Judge...
The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Buck: We object.
The Court: Sustained. Next witness.