Talk:Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Will v. Michigan Department of State Police appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 March 2009, and was viewed approximately 2,732 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police ruling, state officials are not always people for legal purposes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/March.

Wikipedia

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The holding in this case really needs to be clarified. --Eastlaw 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic