Mader v. Motorola Inc., No. 92 C 8089, 1999 WL 519020 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 14, 1999) (Manning, J.).

This opinion intersects with IP only to the extent that you consider the opinion a derivative work based on its use of Beatles and Pink Floyd song titles and quotes.  But it does highlight a fun area of legal writing — the use of song lyrics in judicial opinions.  A recent law review article,  [Insert Song Lyrics Here]: The Uses and Misuses of Popular Music Lyrics in Legal Writing, by Professor Alex Long analyzes the use of music in legal writing (Bob Dylan is the most cited artist in judicial opinions, followed by Paul Simon and Bruce Springsteen). (Note: If my wife were a federal district judge, you might see a sharp increase in judicial citations to Judas Priest and KISS. Thankfully – at least for the sake of good musical taste – she is not, although she would otherwise make a great judge.)

Prof. Long is not a fan of Judge Manning’s citations to the Beatles and Pink Floyd, in part because of an admitted distaste for Pink Floyd.  I, however, enjoyed the references.  Here is the section of the opinion quoted in Prof. Long’s article:

The Beatles once sang about the long and winding road. This 1992 case has definitely walked down it, but at the end of the day, the plaintiffs and their counsel were singing the Pink Floyd anthem "Another Brick in the Wall" after consistently banging their collective heads against a popular procedural wall – Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 12 governing the briefing and submission of summary judgment motions.

You can argue that the analogy is weak because “Another Brick in the Wall” was about breaking down the wall, not just banging into it. But I still like it (the opinion itself breaks down the wall). 

My favorite music-referencing judicial opinion, however, remains Judge Enslen’s opinion in Hirt v. Richardson, 127 F. Supp.2d 833 (W.D. Mich. 1999).  If memory serves, Judge Enslen has a few others, but this is one I remember from my W.D. Michigan clerking days (I clerked for Judge Quist, not Judge Enslen, but this opinion made the rounds while I was clerking because it was cleverly written and a high-profile issue).  Because I cannot link to it without permission from Westlaw, here is an excerpt from it:

As for the future–whatever will be will be.  Since the future is not ours to see,[6] however, and in the absence of something approaching a concrete plan by either the United States or Russia, no meaningful [Environmental Assessment] or [Environmental Impact Study] could even be conducted . . . .

[6] Happy Holidays, Doris Day, wherever you may be.

Thanks to Legal Blog Watch and The Volokh Conspiracy for bringing the article to my attention.