Sodniki si prizadevajo pojasniti pravno izrazoslovje na različne načine, pri čemer so včasih bolj, včasih manj uspešni. Nekateri posegajo po antičnih ali verskih prispodobah in ljudskih rekih, drugi pa kar po znanih filmskih likih in zgodbah. Slovenski sodniki so zadržani pri pretiranem poenostavljanju obrazložitev, zato v sodbah slovenskih sodišč ne bomo naleteli denimo na živopisne junake, ki nastopajo v Vojni zvezd.
Toliko bolj pa so “drzni” sodniki in arbitri v drugih državah, ki prav z namenom približanja svoje obrazložitve strankam v sporu ali pri argumentiranju svojih stališč uporabljajo različne primerjave iz sveta filma in zabave. Zato ni presenečenje, da je tudi kultna vesoljska pustolovščina Vojna zvezd, katere nadeljevanje Sila se prebuja se prav te dni predvaja v kinodvoranah, dobila svoje mesto v odločitvah sodišč.
“[…] it chartered and nominated a vessel, which I shall call the “Tantive IV”, to transport the Dar Blend from South Sudan to up to three safe ports including Alderaan and Cloud City […].
…Owen proceeded to load the Dar Blend onto the Tantive IV at Port Sudan on 17 and 18 December 2010. However, Owen did not instruct the Tantive IV to sail directly from Port Sudan to Cloud City. Instead, he instructed the vessel to sail from Port Sudan to Alderaan and to remain in Alderaan awaiting further routing orders […].”
AMZ v. AXX,  SGHC 283.
“I do not credit Mr. Fleming’s testimony, which is not adequately supported or explained and is, at best, highly exaggerated. Even in Star Wars, it took the destruction of a planet to create “a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.” And it took no less a Jedi Knight than Obi–Wan Kenobi to sense it.”
Pampered Chef v. Alexanian, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.·804 F.Supp.2d 765 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
“Here, the prosecutor’s comments can hardly be said to be egregious, deceptive, or reprehensible. In Star Wars, a Jedi Knight employs the Jedi mind trick by asserting to investigating stormtroopers that “these are not the droids you’re looking for,” when the droids accompanying the Jedi Knight are, in fact, the droids the stormtroopers were looking for. ( (as of May 19, 2015).) While perhaps overly flippant, we do not find this to be an egregious denigration of the defense in this case. In fact, the instant case did boil down to the prosecutor insisting that defendant was the driver of the motorcycle, while defendant asserted he was not the driver of the motorcycle.
Similarly, we find no merit to defendant’s claim the jurors would infer from the prosecutor’s remarks that defense counsel believed them to be weak-minded. Such an interpretation would assume not only an extensive knowledge of Star Wars on the part of the members of the jury, but also that the jurors interpreted the prosecutor’s remark in the most offensive and damaging way imaginable. However, “we do not lightly infer that the prosecutor intended his remarks to have their most damaging meaning or that the jury drew that meaning rather than the less damaging one.” (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1192.) As we find the prosecution’s comments were neither improper nor prejudicial, defendant’s argument must fail.”
People v. Cooper, Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District, F067544 (Cal. Ct. App. May 21, 2015).
Večjo sproščenost pri obrazložitvah in argumentiranju gre nedvomno pripisati posebnostim sistema common law in pomenu pop kulture v severnoameriški družbi. Seveda pa pri tem ne gre za množičen pojav prodiranja filmskih junakov v sodne in arbitražne odločitve, ampak le za nekoliko drugačen pristop, kot ga poznamo v kontinentalnih pravnih sistemih.