Talk:State law (United States)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on State law (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101228000641/http://www.la-legal.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=7 to http://www.la-legal.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Connecticut material is a non sequitur

It doesn't flow at all. It comes out of nowhere, a sudden digression to Connecticut statutes, then a sudden switch back to a completely different topic, codification. Or as we say in the legal profession, objection, relevance. Okay, it's not a word salad, but it's close. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), on my talk page you asked What relevance does the printing of the statutes of Connecticut possibly have in the middle of a discussion of interstate (not intrastate) diversity of state law? - but the discussion of Connecticut statutes comes after the section on State_law_(United_States)#Interstate_diversity right? It's in the next section. Prior to my restoration of the Connecticut section, it started with The first reaction, codification, was an attempt - there was no sense of what had been reacted to, whereas the Connecticut thing at least set the stage of unwritten law (albeit in that state). After reading it more carefully, I see what you mean and I replaced the Connecticut section with a citation which starts to discuss the early movement. II | (t - c) 15:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)