Aulet v. Castro:
Judge Rothenberg provides a clinical definition of "chutzpah":
In describing the former wife’s behavior, the term “chutzpah” comes to mind.Oy.
“In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has overstepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah. Moreover, “chutzpah” is defined as “brazenness; gall.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 242 (1973).
I don't disagree with this definition, but it fails to convey the nuance, the subtleties of a properly placed Yiddishism.
The wikipedia entry cited by the Judge references Leo Rosten, who pretty much nailed it:
Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as "gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible guts,' presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to." In this sense, chutzpah expresses both strong disapproval and a grudging admiration. In the same work, Rosten also defined the term as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan."Now that's chutzpah!
Alex Sink v. East Coast:
I can't believe this is an actual legal doctrine:
the “sword-wielder” doctrine, applies when a “plaintiff seeks judicial protection from a real or imminent danger of invasion of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by the state agency.” Id. (citations omitted). In determining whether the swordwielder doctrine is applicable, “[t]he test is whether the state is the original swordwielder, and the plaintiff’s suit a shield against the state’s thrust. If so, a suit may be maintained in the county where the blow has been or is about to be struck.”"The State's thrust"?
Doesn't the doctrine, when laid out like that, sound a bit.....juvenile?