Kershner - Intolerable Cruelty (2003) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] erikriveros 12 years ago

kershner was in kentucky?!?

i love this scene, but i thought richard jenkins was great...when he finally has had enough of GC's banter, gets pissed, slams his paper in his briefcase and storms off..ahhhh..love it

it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

reply

[–] jmrex 12 years ago

Freddy!!!

reply

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 12 years ago

"but this is just banter as Miles comes back with same "have you forgotten Kirchner?" just to say to freddy "no deal, we are off to court because I have found Tensing Norgay and am about to trump your video""

At the time of the first meeting when Kirshner was raised, Miles had no idea there was a "Tensing Norgay" yet...

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 12 years ago

You might be right, I'll have to rewatch that scene some time.

Heinz, the Baron Krauss von Espy...I loved how it waterfalled down from Massey to the judge to the baliff.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] omoxus 12 years ago

Good writing with good acting/timing to back it up.

Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

robynari wrote:

is there actually a divorce law precedent in Kentucky named Kershner?

Kershner v. Kershner, (Ohio 2004) was the Court of Appeals, so it may have been referring to an earlier case that was before this movie.I did not read it so I do not know if it is actually relevant or just a joke.

reply

[–] tom_james-267-296610 10 years ago

It's a joke. He's winding him up because he has no intention of negotiating.

Kershner isn't relevant because as Freddy points out, it (whatever the case law was) only applied in Kentucky).

Miles is just messing with him because he's an easy target, as evidenced by the way he storms out. LOL.

"Fine, we'll eat the pastry". He's a shyster.

reply

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

tom_james-267-296610 wrote:

It's a joke.

I do not doubt that at all, but I was amused to discover that there is a perhaps relevant Kershner case.

Kershner isn't relevant because as Freddy points out, it (whatever the case law was) only applied in Kentucky).

Does he claim case law or only a precedent? I don't remember. Precedents may not be binding in another state but they are certainly relevant as persuasive precedents.

Within the federal legal systems of several common-law countries, and most especially the United States, it is relatively common for the distinct lower-level judicial systems (e.g. state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to regard the decisions of other jurisdictions within the same country as persuasive precedent. Particularly in the United States, the adoption of a legal doctrine by a large number of other state judiciaries is regarded as highly persuasive evidence of the general preferability of that doctrine;http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Precedent

reply