Burritos: Delicious, but Legally Not Sandwiches

Well, in Massachusetts, anyway.

Man, the exhibits in this case must have ruled.

No wonder Subway always compares itself to McDonald's burgers.

This is how the system is supposed to work, dammit!

I've never had Qdoba. Burritos are normally the one food item I'm kind of snobby about, but seeing as how they're owned by Jack In the Box, I might give them a shot.

Although that begs the question: What about a Cheesesteak? Is THAT a sandwich? Because they just have a roll and cut open one side of it leaving just ONE SLICE OF BREAD.

HMMM?

(Man, I'm gonna be such a good lawyer.)

i ate Qdoba for lunch today, but i always get the tacos.

and that is all i have to add to this thread

Can you legally put a roll, bun or loaf in the same category as sliced bread? If one cuts through the roll does it become sliced bread or does it continue to be a roll?

Wait, you guys have Qdoba, but not Jack In the Box? Weird. I've never even seen a Qdoba.

yet another reason to return to your mittenly homeland

you could come to work with me and look at qdoba all day long. it's right across the street.

Thanks a lot, Subrosa, now I want a burrito.

If the roll has been sliced through so there are are now two wholly distinct and contiguous pieces of roll, I would argue that it would fall within the category of "sliced bread" since the plain definition of "bread" would include "rolls" and it has been "sliced". Thus, if we were to apply the holding of Paneria v. Qdoba, it follows that anything made by placing other ingredients between the two halves of the aforementioned sliced roll would be a legal sandwich.

I think the more pressing question arises when we have a roll that has not been sliced through completely. Is that then classified as a "burrito"? And is that classification now "suspect" and entitled to greater constitutional protection under Caroline Products fn. 4?

I wish I hadn't dropped out of my law journal. This would make an AMAZING law review article.

Oh my god, I'm so hungry after this article.

Also: I've reviewed the menu, and I deem Chipotle to rule over Qdoba. Still, no shopping center is complete without Mexican food.

Well, according to the previously mentioned Paneria v. Qboda the definition of "burrito" hinges upon the inclusion of a "tortilla". Therefore, a half sliced roll (one which has not yet become sliced bread), having not been defined as a "tortilla" can not be classified as a "burrito".

How can you live in California and eat at Chipotle?

Fair point. I may have to revise my findings.

Didn't Jack In The Box have a huge food poisoning case awhile back? Something like that?

EDIT: Yep. E. coli O157:H7.

Just sayin' is all.

If the burrito is ruled a non-sanwich item, how will this effect "wraps"?

Oh come on. Who doesn't like a little e coli for seasoning once in a while?

(Seriously, though. Jack In the Box is soooooooo good. Mmmmm.)

Exactly.
I was going to say "Jack In The Box owning them counts as a plus in their corner? "

We don't know nothin' 'bout Jack In The Box here, unless one of our dad's co-workers sued them. Then we know that they had a big E. Coli problem that killed a few toddlers and necessitated a few liver transplants and the like.

a partially sliced roll is still bread and its definitely sliced, albeit partially. besides, all the juice and shit eventually weakens the spine to the point of separation.

But the holding clearly notes that the fact that there are two slices of bread is significant. So is a cheesesteak a sandwich at its conception or only at the point where it falls all apart and there are two slices of bread?

And yeah... what about the "wrap" issue? Because I've certainly ordered "sandwich wraps" before. What then?

The mind boggles.

Sandwich law is clearly a growing field. Subrosa, you've found your calling.