Welcome to Term of Art Collective, where art imitates law.

This project is borne at the intersection of law and the facts that shape it. The Collective is a group of Artists from around the globe who have applied their unique artistic approach to depict some of the most famous and well read cases of American and English jurisprudence. As Charles Bukowski once said, “An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way.” This project attempts to illustrate just that. Pun intended.

Each work is available in fine art print for your home, school, or office collection.

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CO.

248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS

14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

 
PIERSON V. POST3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

PIERSON V. POST

3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

BYRNE V. BOADLE

2 Hurl. & Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (1863)

 

Click on each work to find out more about available sizes and pricing.

 
PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY 338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY

338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

LOVING V. VIRGINA388 U.S. 1 (1967)

LOVING V. VIRGINA

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES

576 U.S. 644 (2015)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS

14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

 
PIERSON V. POST3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

PIERSON V. POST

3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

 

Click on each work to find out more about available sizes and pricing.

 
PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY 338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY

338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

LOVING V. VIRGINA388 U.S. 1 (1967)

LOVING V. VIRGINA

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES

576 U.S. 644 (2015)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

REGINA V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS

14 Q.B.D. 26th 73 (1884)

 
PIERSON V. POST3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

PIERSON V. POST

3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805)

 

Click on each work to find out more about available sizes and pricing.

 
PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY 338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

PETITIONS OF THE KINSMAN TRANSIT COMPANY

338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)

LOVING V. VIRGINA388 U.S. 1 (1967)

LOVING V. VIRGINA

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

DODGE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

204 Mich. 459 (Mich. 1919)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

OBERGFELL V. HODGES

576 U.S. 644 (2015)

SILVERMAN V. KING247 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 1991)

SILVERMAN V. KING

247 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 1991)

RIDEAU V. LOS ANGELES TRANSIT 124 Cal. App. 2d 466 (1954)

RIDEAU V. LOS ANGELES TRANSIT

124 Cal. App. 2d 466 (1954)

VOSBURG V. PUTNEY80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403, 403 (1891)

VOSBURG V. PUTNEY

80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891)

UNION OIL CO. V. OPPEN501 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1974)

UNION OIL CO. V. OPPEN

501 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1974)

 
GRIMSHAW V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (1981)

GRIMSHAW V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (1981)

 
KIRKSEY V. KIRKSEY8 Ala. 131 (1845)

KIRKSEY V. KIRKSEY

8 Ala. 131 (1845)