Document Type


Publication Date



As every jurist knows, there is a vast body of law about Christmas. For instance, every municipal bureaucrat knows that it’s quite alright to display the Holy Child en crèche so long as He’s adequately trivialized by “Santa’s sleigh; a live 40–foot Christmas tree strung with lights; statues of carolers in old-fashioned dress; candy-striped poles; a ‘talking’ wishing well; a large banner proclaiming ‘SEASONS GREETINGS’; a miniature ‘village’ with several houses and a church; and various ‘cut-out’ figures, including those of a clown, a dancing elephant, a robot, and a teddy bear.” There are cases about dangerous Christmas ornaments, whether Christmas trees are “crops” or “realty,” and exonerating a criminal defendant who sold whisky not for profit but only to allow someone else to celebrate the season by making eggnog. For all of the doubters, there is even an Ohio Municipal Court decision holding that a person who produced a “’Certificate of Birth’ for one Santa Claus born at the North Pole December 25th in the year 383 A.D. to Mr. Claus and Holly Noel with Dr. Snowflake attending” did not violate a state statute prohibiting persons from bearing state identification cards with fictious names. What can we say? The Buckeyes have taken the “don’t spoil it” thing to heart. But I digress.

The point is that everyone knows that there are thousands upon thousands of cases about Christmas but, to date, no one has taken it upon himself to study the cases decided on Christmas Day. Why, you ask? Never mind that. Because no one has done it, it’s something to be done. And now I have. Yes indeed. I have meticulously catalogued every single published judicial decision in American history rendered on December 25. In this pathbreaking article, I provide an empirical assessment, both quantitative and qualitative, of those cases.

The remainder of this Article proceeds as follows. Part I provides the quantitative assessment. Basically, I just add up the numbers. (For those not wishing to read Part I, the answer is 107). Part II provides the qualitative assessment. Basically, I just report random things about the cases (although there is a point in the end). The Article then concludes, none too soon.