Ansel v. Registry

Ansel v. Registry
The page of the opinion that was quoted most
Decided	9 September 2056
Court	███████████████████████
Majority	Judge Corvin Hale, with two
Dissent	Judges Mara Teague and Obed Lisle
Outcome	Claim dismissed; opinion much quoted

'''Ansel v. Registry''' (2056) is the ruling of the ███████████████████████ that dismissed a guardian's claim over the cost of the ████████'s bells and, in doing so, called the bell "a collar of identification, no more than a licence plate on a dog". The claim was minor and the sentence became the best known in Lyradian law.^[1]

Tobias Ansel, a guardian of three ███████, sued the registry in 2055 for the 2,700 credits his household paid for bells in one year. His argument was only that the bells were overpriced. The Court heard it in a single morning.

Judge Hale held the fee lawful and, to show the bell was harmless, wrote that it was "a collar of identification". Judge Teague dissented in one paragraph: "A licence plate does not tell the registry which room the dog is sleeping in." Judge Lisle's concurrence in the dissent noted that the bell sounded a note a guardian could name from the next floor.^[1]

The opinion was quoted in the ███████████████████████████████'s 2058 appeal and in the call to the first ███████████. Ansel himself wrote to the Association in 2058: "I only wanted my money back." He joined the Day, and the family's three bells stayed stopped until nightfall.^[2]

• ███████████████████████
• ████████
• ███████████
• ███████████████████████████████