Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

Three-judge Second Circuit panel ponders what constitutes a "significant romantic relationship"

Three-judge Second Circuit panel ponders what constitutes a "significant romantic relationship": According to an opinion issued today, "This appeal requires us to consider the validity of a condition of supervised release that obligated [the defendant-appellant], upon entry into a 'significant romantic relationship,' to notify the United States Probation Department and to inform the other party to the relationship of his conviction."

In the course of striking down that condition of supervised release as unduly vague, the opinion goes on to explain:

We easily conclude that people of common intelligence (or, for that matter, of high intelligence) would find it impossible to agree on the proper application of a release condition triggered by entry into a "significant romantic relationship." What makes a relationship "romantic," let alone "significant" in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be "significant." The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings. See, e.g., Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Marriage of Figaro (1786); Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (Thomas Egerton, 1814); When Harry Met Sally (Columbia Pictures 1989); He's Just Not That Into You (Flower Films 2009).

Thus, although "He's Just Not That Into You" may not receive an Academy Award nomination, the film has already received mention in a federal appellate court ruling. Take that, "The Hurt Locker"!

Full post as published by How Appealing on January 07, 2010 (boomark / email).