The case (decided last week and put online today) is interesting on several levels -- the first of which is the facts (follow the link below). Second, the case has been tossed around in legal circles because one of the judges who dissented is a bit of a quirk and issued his opinion in rhyme -- which was not unusual for this judge. However, two other judges took the very unusual step of issuing harsh criticism of the rhyming judge, stating that his bizarre opinions were harming the credibility of the court.
The legal issue in the case was whether the groom's lying about whether the ring was real (and valuing it at $21,000) on the prenuptial agreement invalidated the prenuptial agreement (because of fraud). The court held that the bride's reliance was not reasonable, i.e., she should have had it appraised, and therefore held the prenup valid.
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/index/SupremeOpindex.asp#month
The first link is the majority opinion, I believe the last link is the rhyming opinion.
The legal issue in the case was whether the groom's lying about whether the ring was real (and valuing it at $21,000) on the prenuptial agreement invalidated the prenuptial agreement (because of fraud). The court held that the bride's reliance was not reasonable, i.e., she should have had it appraised, and therefore held the prenup valid.
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/index/SupremeOpindex.asp#month
The first link is the majority opinion, I believe the last link is the rhyming opinion.