This is an appeal from the Chief Justice, which was argued by this Court over nine days, with some occasional assistance from the learned and experienced counsel who appeared for the parties.
Starke J, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v S Hoffnung & Co Ltd  HCA 49; (1928) 42 CLR 39 (1 November 1928).
This oft-used quote is a favourite of the former Solicitor-General, Mr Griffith QC, although we are indebted to McHugh J’s careful reading of the reports and photographic memory for confirming it:
MR GRIFFITH: I am obliged to your Honour. We did not intend still to be on our feet. I am not sure, your Honour, whether it was ever reported - it is perhaps apocryphal - but I am told that Justice Starke once delivered judgment saying, “This case was argued three days between members of the Court with the occasional intervention of counsel.” I do not know why - - -
McHUGH J: It is not apocryphal, it is in the Argus Law Reports.
MR GRIFFITH: It is? Thank you, your Honour. I do not know why I said that, but other than to say that I did not intend still to be on my feet.
[From Gould and ORS v Brown S204/1996  HCATrans 118 (8 April 1997)].
You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl glass
containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.
Kozinski CJ, Institute of Cetacean Research v Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 25 February 2013.
Perhaps it may be that the learned counsel were afraid to refer us to this case lest the same results should happen, namely, that the counsel who signed the bill was made to pay the costs of the bill, and the solicitors were fined 50l., and the plaintiff and defendant were both hanged.
Grantham J, Burrows v Rhodes  1 QB 816, 826.
The reasonable use of land may occasionally cause annoyance about which neighbours cannot reasonably complain. In considering whether an inconvenience is unreasonable, allowance must be made for reasonable give and take. As Jordan CJ said in Don Brass Foundry:
hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim
(this kind of indulgence we both ask and, in turn, give).
Sir Frederick did not acknowledge the source (Horace, Ars Poetica 11), doubtless because he assumed his readers would know it.
Emmett JA, Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council  NSWCA 382 (18 November 2013)  (citations omitted).
These appeals are concerned with a colony of frogs. They are not the βάτραχοι of Aristophanes, who inhabit the marshes of the River Styx, encountered by Dionysus on his way to the Kingdom of Hades. Rather, the appeals are concerned with a colony of crinia tinnula, or Wallum froglets, which inhabit ephemeral ponds on land owned by the appellant, Gales Holding Pty Limited (Gales). It is likely that both parties to these proceedings would agree with the response of Dionysus to the croaking (‘βρεκεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ’) of the βάτραχοι:
'ἀλλ᾽ ἐξόλοισθ᾽ αὐτῷ κοάξ:
οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ κοάξ.’
That is to say:
'May you all utterly perish with your croaking'.
Emmett JA, Gales Holdings Pty Limited v Tweed Shire Council  NSWCA 382 (18 November 2013).