The timing of an event can play an important role in litigation, and, in determining timing, daylight saving time can be the deciding factor. For example, in an attorney malpractice case, the client argued that his criminal attorney erred in failing to argue that a difference between Alaska Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time affected whether a newly enacted law was in force at the time of his crime. See Stewart v. Elliott, 239 P.3d 1236, 1243 (Alaska 2010). Although the client had successfully sought post-conviction relief due to the discrepancy between the timing of statute's applicability, the court in this case found that the client's attorney did not breach a duty of care in failing to raise that issue. Daylight saving time also played a role in Playboy Club, Inc. v. Myers, where the court held that Missouri's adoption of Daylight Saving Time in 1967 affected a Missouri law limiting the hours during which liquor could be sold and that as a result the plaintiffs could not base their closing time on Central Standard Time. Playboy Club, Inc. v. Myers, 431 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Mo. 1968). For more facts about Daylight Saving Time, visit WebExhibits.org's collection of incidents and anecdotes.
|Sir Henry Norman, 1st Baronet|
If you are depressed by the fact that in Seattle the sun will set at 4:18 p.m. on December 16, know that on June 21, 2015, we will have nearly 16 hours of daylight and the sun will not set until 9:11 p.m. If June is too far off, perhaps a verse from Sir Henry Norman, quoted in Professor Calandrillo's article, will provide some comfort:
The very best way to lengthen the day
Is to steal a few hours from the night.
Image of Sir Henry Norman,via Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Sir_Henry_Norman,_1st_Baronet.jpg