As longtime readers know, P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster series is one of my favorite works of literature. I was procrastinating this afternoon with some amusing Westlaw searches and decided see if Bertie Wooster turned up in any cases. Lo and behold:
In re Marriage of Bardzik, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72, 80 n.9 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 22, 2008):
We have no occasion in this opinion to deal with how ability and opportunity fit within that eddy of imputation law that might be called “high asset cases,” where, Bertie Wooster-like, there never really seems to be any question that the payor would actually get a job, and the issue involved just how far the court could go into imputing income from return on assets.
Weeks Off. Products, Inc. v. Chem. Bank, 16887 - 1987, 1993 WL 597107, at *10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 1993):
Plaintiff's chairman and sole owner was plaintiff's worst witness. He emerged from his own testimony as a heedless bumbler, a kind of Bertie Wooster without a Jeeves to rescue him. An inheritor of a thriving business, he was blatant in his neglect of basic business principles. His Harvard Law School education was diminished by his conduct.
Ouch. That had to hurt.
