Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Proposed deletion of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce

The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of property laws

The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


Concern, reason or rationale: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

• Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.

Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

COTPA No Smoking sign 1.jpg

image:COTPA No Smoking sign 1.jpg has been nominated for deletion; does anyone know what kind of license this legally mandated signage carries? -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about title of article Loss and damage

There is apparently a movement or something around the subject of "loss and damage" as being specifically related to climate change, per the UN Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries Initiative and so forth ([1], [2] etc. being top google hits for "loss and damage"), hence the article on this is called just Loss and damage. But is this also a valid separate concept in civil law, or just two words that mean what they say? If you want to see some non-lawyers thrashing around in ignorance about this, see the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States FAC

Menominee Tribe v. United States is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive3. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Could use a hand at Rick Paul

Hi WikiProject Law members. An article on lawyer Rick Paul was recently created. I don't know anything about the legal profession, but it doesn't seem to me that the subject as currently presented meets the general notability guideline, mostly due to lack of independent coverage. Was hoping to get some more experienced eyes on the article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Hello, could you look at Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, where some facts about U.S. governance are being seriously misstated? This article addresses an issue which has become of keen political interest not only in the USA but internationally. Unfortunately, over time some editors have been overrating the significance of some fast changing developments in certain U.S. states, and in the process misrepresenting the law. The legally false claims are, of course, unsourced -- i.e., the publications cited don't actually contain the statements they are alleged to contain (the publications are just news media reports of the issuance of marriage licenses or of court rulings). At the moment, these unfortunate edits are especially made in regard to New Mexico. One bad insertion is the claim that the state of New Mexico delegates to the counties the power to regulate marriage. It would be helpful to have fresh contributors who understand equal protection, who understand the assignment of powers between municipalities, counties, and states. These certain editors are interpreting the scattered issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples and a couple of district court rulings as the state having recognized/legalized same sex marriage, despite the fact that the state supreme court to date has not decided the issue (it heard arguments just yesterday, October 23). It would also be good if you would keep an eye on Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Mexico. So far, these terrible distortions of legal reality have not been inserted into this article, but they could yet be. False edits are also being made to a templated map used to illustrate Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States. To view the footnotes to the map, look up the map there. However, to be able to edit these footnotes, instead of going directly to the file, we seem to need to go to [3], which you can navigate to also by clicking on the linked capital 'E' at the map box's lower right corner. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick

Dear legal experts: The above article, which has been submitted for review at Afc, may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been accepted. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

30 day archive timeout === lack of replies

We need to change the 30 day thread timeout. Archives are immutable, hence for the most part all threads are being deleted/made write-only after 30 days. And very few threads are being replied to in time before they are deleted.

That's stupid. By the time I get around to reading this WikiProject, these threads are archived and hence deleted/write-protected/non-usable. Is there a reason why threads are archived so quickly on such difficult subject?

I propose we extend it to at least 60 days, and when the sky doesn't fall, we consider increasing the thread reply timeout even higher. Int21h (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I should note, with subjects as exciting as this, progress is slow. I have only created a couple tiny articles since the last thread was deleted. I do not have time to make those edits and monitor this page before the timeout goes off. That means editors may take years to happen upon the conversations going on here. They should not be locked out of the conversation because they didn't check this page every 30 days. Int21h (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy if we just turned off MiszaBot II here completely. I think in many cases it is actively harmful, and this is one of those cases. No objection to 60 or 90 days, either. I also DNAU'd this thread. Though, I question the claim that archives are immutable -- can we not restore a thread from an Archive (either duplicating it from the Archive, or destructively cutting it out of the Archive when it is moved back here)? I agree it's a huge pain, though. jhawkinson (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked what the deal was with pulling threads out of the archives a long time ago, when trying to get some clarification. I think someone gave an example or two of someone doing it, but for the most part no one had ever done it. I've never done it. I've never seen it done (the example threads had of course been re-archived.) But the opinion, as I remember, was that you shouldn't just keep a discussion going inside the archive, you're supposed to bring it out. But again, no one does that. I think they used to even have "this is archived, do not edit" plastered all over them.

But yeah, for this WikiProject, the timeout should be a while. Not quite sure how long, but longer. I mean, if this page gets really big or a thread is really big some can do it manually, but the automatic 30 days in is just too quick. I'm not sure how manageable "off" would be though. Who's going to be the one who archives? When is too big or too long?

I say we start inching up and see what the sweet spot is. Int21h (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have increased it to 90 days for now. We shall see if the sky falls. Int21h (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Chiming in with a ditto to jhawkinson. I suggest taking it out entirely and seeing how long it takes for it to get annoying and someone to archive it (hopefully we can be bold). II | (t - c) 02:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could you have a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Created Category:Targeted killing

• Category:Targeted killing

I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.

Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Peer Review

This article has been submitted for a peer review in preparation for a run at Featured Article. Any assistance would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Beck v. Eiland-Hall for Peer Review

• Beck v. Eiland-Hall

I've placed the article up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Referendum in Croatia

I invite all interested editors to contribute in article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Created category for Streisand effect

• Category:Streisand effect

I've gone ahead and created the category for Category:Streisand effect.

Please feel free to populate it with related articles.

Discussion is welcome at Category talk:Streisand effect.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Specialist in Copyright Law?

Can someone who is a specialist in copyright law please get back to me either by my talk page or replying here because I would like some advice on a matter in which i'm out of my depth. --Olowe2011 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You didn't say which jurisdiction. I'm a copyright specialist but based in London (England) and I'm guessing you are a US lawyer and so my expertise is going to be less than useful. Feel free to drop me an email - if you google my name you should be able to find it. Francis Davey (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

A second request to move this article from United States v. Microsoft Corp. has been opened. A previous move request was closed 45 days ago with the move to the current title. Interested editors may weigh in at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rudder v. Microsoft Corp.

Is this case notable per WP:notability (or Wikipedia:Notability (events) if a case is also an event)? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, this is the leading decision in an important area; however, that kind of assertion needs a third-party source, which is presently missing from the article. bd2412 T 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of secondary sources available via a Google search. It would appear to be notable. BTW, court cases are not normally evaluated as an event. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

• Portal:Freedom of speech

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Guarantee#Notability/separate article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Guarantee#Notability/separate article. -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

The requested move has been relisted. Join in discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting info refs and contribs

Hi,

Seasons Greetings.We are looking for more info, refs, and contribs about concepts; namely 'legal consciousness',l'egal mobilization' and 'legal socialization' in article Legal_awareness#Related_concepts

Thank you

Mahitgar (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination help

Can someone take a look at the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation? I feel like the article relies too much on primary sources -- the judge's opinion, and a series of blog posts, and posts on law firm web sites giving their opinions. Are these the sort of sources normally relied on for law articles? Should we be relying on secondary sources to interpret the meaning and influence of court findings? Why hasn't the legal press covered this case? And if they haven't, does it fail notability? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the DYK nomination was already rejected, but I'll opine anyway because the article's still out there...

For a district court decision, we would require reliable secondary source coverage at the outset demonstrating that either the lawsuit as a whole is notable or the resulting judicial opinion itself, because the vast majority of those aren't notable. The reliance on the judge's opinion to write the article is not necessarily problematic, provided our article is strictly descriptive and not venturing into WP:OR interpretation, though it's far more difficult for a lay reader to sift through legal materials at the trial court level because even a final, written opinion will lack the focus of an appellate opinion on what is significant and not merely routine. And it depends on the blogs as far as whether those are reliable is, for example) and/or should count towards satisfying WP:GNG. The one hosted by Forbes would seem to be. Even with some secondary source coverage, however, it still might only be worth mentioning in the Zappos article. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Assistant United States Attorneys

Interested WikiProject members might wish to view and comment on WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 13#Category:Assistant United States Attorneys. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Lawsuits

Category:Lawsuits has been nominated for merging to Category:Case law. Please comment at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:United States lawsuits

Category:United States lawsuits has been nominated for merging to Category:United States case law. Please comment at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Lists of lawsuits

Category:Lists of lawsuits has been nominated for merging to Category:Case law lists. Please comment at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion merger nominations of Category:Nintendo litigation, Category:Stanford University litigation, and Category:Unification Church litigation

Category:Nintendo litigation, Category:Stanford University, and Category:Unification Church litigation, have been nominated for merging to Category:Nintendo, Category:Stanford University, Category:Unification Church, respectively. Please add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

The following RFC may be of interest to members of this board. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Credit Card Surcharge Law

This was at WP:AfD, then tagged for speedy deletion. Can somebody fix this mess? If not, it wil be deleted by Christmas. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Burgess

Hello legal experts! The above old abandoned Afc submission was declined by an editor who is not banned. It's about to be deleted under db-G13 as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the article be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida Circuit Court judges are next to the bottom level for judges down here. Not notable....William 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think just because a judge is at the bottom of a sovereign jurisdiction's court system means they're not notable. (E.g., US district court judges.) But unlike the United States with 300 million potential Wikipedia editors (and an entire world that pays it attention), Florida only has 20 million. And the United States doesn't have that many editors that care about such judges, maybe only a few people out of 300 million (the entire world, even), so do the math: such articles on Florida judges aren't going to get created anytime soon. Int21h (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, U.S. magistrate judges are the bottom rung of the federal judiciary, and they have been determined to be non-notable. U.S. district judges, on the other hand, are appointed by the President of the United States, approved by a majority vote in the United States Senate, and thereafter are able to hold office for the rest of their lives. bd2412 T 02:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article will fade away shortly unless someone has the interest to edit it (even slightly), so I'll leave it to the experts to decide. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

US magistrate judges are like Florida circuit court magistrates or justices of the peace and traffic commissioners from other states; they are not normal judges, but essentially only assist judges/the court and handle administrative issues like warrants and summons. For example, orders in felony jury trials must be signed by a judge; a signature by a magistrate/magistrate judge/justice of the peace/traffic commissioner of that very same court is not enough, because they are not judges (hence the qualification on the word "judge"). That's like comparing apples and crab apples. If we're going to consider non-judges in the ladder, there are certainly lower rungs than US magistrate judges, like "judges" in Article I courts. Florida circuit court judges are like US district court judges, which can be and are notable, maybe even more so because they are elected in competitive elections. Int21h (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk candidate for TFA discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Afroyim_v._Rusk.

Thank you for your consideration,

— Cirt (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of speech portal for Featured candidate

I've nominated Portal:Freedom of speech for Featured quality consideration, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of posting to TFA nominations

I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Western State College of Law at Argosy University

Hi, I'm looking for help with a request I posted a little while ago on the Western State College of Law at Argosy University Talk page. I've prepared an updated draft for this article to address a few issues with the existing article. In general, the article is in need of cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards and needs improved sources throughout. I've provided more details on the changes between the current version and my draft on the Talk page.

So far one editor has reviewed the draft and provided me with suggestions, which I have incorporated. However, this editor has been absent from the discussion for a little while and I'm hoping that an editor who is interested in this Wikiproject can also review this request and my draft and let me know what they think. I'm ultimately looking for an editor who is willing to implement the new draft if they agree that it is an improvement. I have prepared this draft on behalf of Education Management Corporation, the school's parent company, and because of this COI I would like to avoid any direct edits to the article.

The full request on the Talk page can be found here. Thanks for taking the time to read this, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Need a mentor

I think I don't need to know much about law or something, as much as I need to be mentored about titling an article about law or a case based on law. I'm looking for someone who is a law expert, but also has time to mentor me ONLY about case names, not law. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Free Expression Policy Project

I've created an article on the organization Free Expression Policy Project.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at Talk:Free Expression Policy Project.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Patrick Borchers

Patrick Borchers has recently been nominated for deletion. Since then a single-purpose account has been adding material aimed at making the subject look good, twisting the facts, adding sources that don't support the assertions, and hyping the subject's accomplishments (See also: [4], [5], [6]). There is substantial material in the article about Borchers being cited by courts in cases that probably aren't notable. This is something I don't see in any other lawyers' articles. I'd appreciate it if those who are more experienced in legal articles would take a look at the page and edit it for WP:NPOV. Thanks. 70.235.85.201 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Bluebook citation style

For anyone that might be interested, there is a Request for Comment on the appropriateness of the Bluebook citation style for Wikipedia articles at Photography is Not a Crime. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Assassination market article - anyone want to help?

Think this article might be one that's relevant to Wikiproject Law?

I've become interested in the assassination market article and made a couple of edits recently as a result of an in-depth Forbes article on the topic.

Interest in editing the article seems to have picked up recently, leaving it quite messy. Anyone want to help out? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Justice

I recently updated and expanded the Wikipedia article on the Institute for Justice, the public advocacy law firm that litigated Kelo v. City of New London and four other cases at the Supreme Court. I am not an attorney, and I would appreciate any review and comments from your perspective. The Institute for Justice is similar to the ACLU, but with a libertarian philosophy. This article is not currently a part of WikiProject Law, but I think it would fit here. Thanks- James Cage (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It also needs a whole lot of work. Way too many SPS as refs, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My thanks for the thorough review. I am using the change log to the page as a punch list, and reading up on the policies you mention (sps, wp:elno, etc.). I am still new to Wikipedia. In particular, I have not worked with some of the tags you added to the article. Please let me know if I make any changes or comments that are "not cool." Not just against a stated policy, but any changes or comments that run counter to Wikipedia culture. Again, thanks! James Cage (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To everyone - I appreciate any thoughts or ideas. Marking things that don't meet minimum standards is very appreciated, but I would also welcome any thoughts on how to make the article more encyclopedic and useful to the reader. I have been using the ACLU page as a model (organization with similar methods, rated GA-class by 8 WikiProjects). If there is a better model, please let me know. James Cage (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging or Clarifying the Case Law and Lawsuit Categories

I'm concerned that the Case Law Category Tree and the Lawsuits Category Tree have, in practice, become interchangeable and rival categories for any court case. I originally submitted a Category For Merger (Cfm) proposal but that submission needs to be refined to better reach consensus.

I think there are four possible ways to move forward:

• 1 Leave: There isn't a problem with the current categorizations.
• 2 Define & Realign Articles: Lawsuits is pretty clear as a category of court cases from civil cases. (We might also need criminal and other categories if we're categorizing by type of law at issue.) Also, we'll need to define how we know if a court case becomes a precedent as case law. (Is any attorney using a case as a precedent sufficient. Does a judge have to cite a case? Do we assume that all cases from a country's supreme court qualify? How do handle overruled cases or changes in government)?
• 3 Merge: Combine the case law and lawsuit trees into one category that covers all court cases. Could be "Court cases" or "Litigation".
• 4 Other:  ???

Thanks RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[The Original CFM Nomination]

   [... This content is initially hidden ...]

Merge the entire Lawsuits tree into the Case Law tree

• Propose merging Category:Lawsuits to Category:Case law
• Propose merging Category:United States lawsuits to Category:United States case law
• Propose merging Category:Lists of lawsuits to Category:Case law lists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING since the lawsuit and case law category trees both group court cases together. Indeed nearly all of the articles in the Lawsuit tree are also in the Case law tree. The category trees are so similar, the Category:Class action lawsuits ricochets back and forth between the two. I really have no preference between the two naming formats but the Case law tree is way, way, way more developed than the anemic Lawsuit tree. (There are also a good number of articles that belong in Category:Legal terms rather than either of these but I'll fix that after this nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Notified the main article creator, the US article creator, the list article creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note I've worked extensively with these articles for years. Most recently, I created a new category, Category:Fictional lawsuits, and placed it under the Lawsuit tree and I also moved Category:Lawsuits against the Devil and Category:Lawsuits against God out of the Lawsuits tree to the Category:Case law by party area. These were good faith edits made before I decided to make this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – these are distinct topics, although often misunderstood. The O. J. Simpson murder case#Civil trial was a simple lawsuit for damages, and did not result in any case law. That is, no lawyer would, in good practice, cite the OJ civil trial as legal precedent when arguing a case. No judge or appellate justice could use the civil trial as case citation because the civil trial is not a "reportable" judicial decision. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  How, in practice, should we distinguish between a case that is likely to be cited in a subsequent case versus one that is not (outside of extreme examples like Brown v. Board of Ed and the OJ case)? Or maybe "celebrity" cases go under lawsuits and everything else goes under case law? Or maybe a reverse merge works better? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity I ran a search on court cases citing Goldman v. Simpson and it actually gets quite a few hits in California court cases: CADLE CO. II, INC. v. FISCUS, NOLAN v. ELAHIE, WALTON v. MUELLER, LEE v. YOON, CAMERON v. LUGO, PEOPLE v. GOMBERG, OCM PRINCIPAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P. v. CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP.. I absolutely concede that there will be some notable cases that are not cited but this underscores the difficulty in spotting which cases are precedent setting.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Good job. And it illustrates my point. These are appellate court case law citations are to the single earlier appellate case that arose out of the original lawsuit that took place in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles trial court. The jury awarded damages in the lawsuit. The appellate court made a decision of case law that arose out of the lawsuit. (Please excuse me if I'm being redundant.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't disagree on the legal distinction, only on how to categorize articles in Wikipedia. The problem is that the court cases don't have one article on the initial case and then another article on the appellate decisions like they would in Lexus but it is generally all included in one Wikipedia article. So every case that was successfully appealed would be included in both category trees which I don't think aids navigation. Are you proposing that court cases that have only (so far) been brought before the initial court be in the lawsuit tree and anything that an appeals court ruled on in should go in the case law tree? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure on how we should characterize the question. Another complication is the fact that case law decisions can pertain to criminal prosecutions. And criminal trials are not "lawsuits" in the common use of the word. So can (or should) these categories be put into the Category:Legal procedure tree? At present they are in Category:Legal disputes, which stands alone. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Some lawsuits are notable as news events (because of notable facts); others for the case law they establish. There is an obvious overlap, but they are different. Case law should probably be a subcat of the other. The distinction is probably best dealt with by having precuse definitions for what should be in each and cross-references, all in headnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A lawsuit does not necessarily become case law, although it may if appealed. If the matter is settled at the trial court level, it is not case law, and would not be appropriate for that category. GregJackP Boomer! 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• comment can someone draw a venn diagram, starting with all "legal processes" and then mapping out where "case law" and "lawsuit" end up and the extent of their overlap? Is a reverse merge possible?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Law/Categorization ought to work on this, but it has no postings in the last few years. But your suggestion for a venn diagram might get some action on their to-do list. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A lawsuit is a civil action (generally for money) usually initiated by a private party. (This is contrast to a criminal prosecution which is always initiated by a government.) Case law is a court decision by a higher court that subsequent cases will look upon as a precedent. (Case law may be based on a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution.) So there are unappealed lawsuits that do not become case law and there is case law that is not based on a lawsuit. So S. Rich is conceptually correct that these are distinct concepts. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that, in practice, Wikipedia articles cover the final appeal of a case (case law) and then, in the background, discuss the original lawsuit or prosecution in the background section. (14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett is alphabetically the first article in Category:United States Supreme Court cases and is a representative example of how these articles are written.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. There is definitely a problem where we have two category trees for court cases that are used interchangeably. There is obviously not a consensus though on whether we should realign the articles based on what those topics are supposed to be or merge them (with some other name that what I proposed). I started a conversation at WikiProject Law to come up with a more refined nomination. Please add your thoughts to the conversation there. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge I think maintaining separate trees will continue to prove difficult and I want Bush v. Gore grouped with other election-related court cases even though it's explicitly not case law. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How is Bush v. Gore not case law? There were decisions handed down by the Supreme Courts of Florida and of the United States, each establishing precedents which have in fact been cited in later cases. The relationship is similar to that between a band and a song having the band's name. For example, Bad Company is a band, and their signature song is titled Bad Company. Although both relate to music, the band is not a kind of song and the song is not a kind of band. The same applies to the relationship between the lawsuit (the events and activities of a group of people) and case law (the published result sometimes, but not always, arising from that activity). bd2412 T 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Per the link I used above, the ruling itself explicitly ruled out using it as precedent in the future. Isn't the whole idea of case law that it can be used as precedent? (Case law redirects to Precedent.) Thank you for the band/song name comparison. Can you point me to some similar article pairings that discuss the original lawsuit (or criminal prosecution) seperately from the case law of the same case? (Thanks for your help understanding this)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The fact that the Court said that the case is not a precedent is meaningless; lawyers cite it in their briefs and lower courts cite it as guiding the outcome in their opinions - see, e.g., League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463, 477 (6th Cir. 2008); Pierce v. Allegheny County Bd. of Elections, 324 F.Supp.2d 684 (W.D. Pa., 2003) ; American Civil Liberties Union v. Santillanes, 506 F.Supp.2d 598 (D.N.M., 2007). What makes it case law is that it is a published decision explaining the meaning of the law from a court whose writings have precedential value. One might as well write a song with lyrics saying "this is not a song", and then argue that it doesn't belong in a song category because the singers have sung that it doesn't. bd2412 T 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that was a very helpful comparison to get me to understand. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Define & Realign Articles This is well within the interest of WikiProject Law and the Categorization discussion should be more active. WP:EXPERTs are needed because the distinctions are significant. To answer some of your questions (above):
  • Is any attorney using a case as a precedent sufficient? — Attorneys cite cases in their arguments to the court. Their citation of a case in a brief does not determine if the case is case law. The actual publication of the case in the reporters makes it case law.
  • Does a judge have to cite a case? — Same as with attorneys. A trial judge will cite case law when issuing a decision with regard to individual cases before him or her. But that issued decision does not become case law itself.
  • Do we assume that all cases from a country's supreme court qualify? — It will depend upon the country. In the US, SCOTUS publishes its decisions and info about cases are handled. Some of their decisions are specifically labeled as not creating precedent.
  • How do handle overruled cases or changes in government? — Different ways to answer these questions. An appellate court may overrule a trial court decision. The decision of the appellate court may thereby become case law. Or, a higher (supreme) court may overrule the appellate court. In that situation, the appellate court decision looses it's legal authority as case law. Only the Supreme court decision has legal authority. Or, a court may overrule its own earlier precedent/decision from an earlier case. In that situation the older (subsequently overruled) case is still case law, but it cannot be cited as precedent.

Complicated, isn't it! But trying to simplify it into meaningless or vague categories won't make it more clear. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• merge From my understanding there are multiple overlapping subsets here, but I don't think we need to categorize on everything. It is sufficient to group all cases for which we have articles on a country basis, without going into fine grained divisions of what sort of law is applied or whether or not the thing in question has become case law.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Leave. As was noted in the original request, a lawsuit is not the same thing as case law and case law is not the same as as lawsuit. In a common law jurisdiction, only an appellate decision creates binding case law, and only where there is a majority opinion. A plurality opinion has special rules. Trial court level decisions in a lawsuit do not create case law, and are not binding. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question This revised posting proposes potentially using "Legal cases" or "Litigation". Would those terms encompass both? (Thanks for your input)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, those are different terms, with different meanings. Even case law has different meanings, dependent on where you are at. In 49 states, case law means common law, stare decisis, or let the decision stand. In Louisiana, it means something else, and they don't follow common law. GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So is Category:Louisiana state case law a problematic category due to the Napoleonic Code-based law? There also must different legal standards within Category:Case law by country.Do these categories have different inclusion criteria than the US ones? What would that criteria be? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not problematic. Louisiana doesn't use stare decisis, but jurisprudence constante. That means case law is still used, but to a lessor extent and in a different manner than in a common law jurisdiction. GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Leave (i.e. do not merge). A lawsuit is any instance wherein a party seeks to have a court award some kind of civil relief (an injunction or money damages) for a wrong committed by another. Criminal cases, which make up a significant portion of legal actions, are not lawsuits. The vast majority of cases do not result in the generation of any "case law", since most civil cases are settled prior to an adjudication of the merits, and those that are decided by a jury (absent appeals or motions to disregard the jury verdict) similarly do not generate a court opinion. On the other hand, a great deal of case law is generated without coming from a lawsuit at all. bd2412 T 04:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question While the vast majority of cases do not form case law, it is my perception that the vast majority of Wikipedia court case articles are case law (due to notability). Is that an accurate observation? (Thanks for your input)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I would say that there is very often a substantial difference between what makes a notable lawsuit and what makes a notable decision. There really are not that many civil cases that catch the attention of the public when they are not brought for the purpose of generating a change in the law (an exception would be the civil case wherein O.J. Simpson was sued for wrongful death following his acquittal in the criminal case for murder). bd2412 T 02:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Leave/do not merge per BD2412. Lawsuit ≠ case law even though some case law obviously arises from lawsuits. We have articles that focus on lawsuits in their own right, and articles that focus on case law (i.e., the written opinions of judges). Many lawsuits will be notable purely because of the parties involved or because of their particular dispute, and many of these will not result in case law because they end by settlement or by jury verdict, and even if appealed still may not generate case law because the higher court may decline to hear the appeal or summarily affirm the lower court's judgement. Conversely, most of our articles on case law arise from criminal proceedings or civil lawsuits that would not have merited articles but for the judicial opinions they generated, in which case it is the judicial document—the appellate or supreme court's opinion—that is notable. Note though that even trial courts may generate notable case law if the judge writes a widely-reported and commented upon opinion, even if it is only persuasive authority rather than binding (one of these even happens to be particularly important to Wikipedia and Commons practice). postdlf (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Bush v. Gore is an obvious example because the ruling is explicitly not case law. So that means it can't go with other election-related cases in Category:United States elections case law. It either should be removed from that cat or the cat should be broadened, correct? (Thanks for your input)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No, not correct. The answer is in that very section you linked to. And consider that even overruled opinions would still be categorized as case law, even though no longer having any precedential value. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your patience explaining this. Case law without precedental value is difficult to contemplate within Wikipedia since there is no article on Case law, only a redirect to Precedent I don't mean that to suggest that there is no distinction between case law and precedent, but it is defined nowhere within Wikipedia so it makes categoriging non-precendental case law challenging. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • See my answer above. Note also that Bush v. Gore does not say that it is not precedential; it merely says that the Court's consideration is limited to the circumstances presented. If another lawsuit is brought based on very similar circumstances, this case would be the binding precedent which lower courts would be bound to follow. bd2412 T 02:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bush v. Gore is valid case law, and is precedential. It's like what bd2412 just said—and that exact section of the decision has been cited in 158 lower court decisions, according to Westlaw. GregJackP Boomer! 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Definition I'd like to get a working definition of case law that isn't subjective. Would it be accurate to say that any court precedent has shown itself to be case law if that decision is cited in at least two court cases (by the sole judge or majority of judges, plurality/minority opinions and attorney arguments don't count)?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not accurate. GregJackP Boomer! 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To extend my analogy above, using such a measure to determine whether something is case law would be like deciding whether a track on a musical album was a "song" based on whether a certain number of other bands had covered it. Case law is case law because it is a written explanation of the meaning of the law as applied to a set of facts, produced by a tribunal that has been legally empowered to make such a determination. bd2412 T 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Black's and Webster's give a start date of "case law" as 1861. And see wiktionary:case law. All refer to case law as law established by judicial decisions (as compared to statutory law). Black's refers to "reported cases". BD2412's explanation is a bit vague because it describes it as an explanation and misses the reported cases requirement. As written, it might include an statement made (written) by a trial court explaining the meaning of the law as applied in particular circumstances. E.g., the rationale for a judge's decision in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I'm trying to get a workable clarification so that we avoid categorizing articles about trials and lawsuits as case law simply because determinations were made by the judge. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, a decision does not need to be published in a reporter in order to be cited as persuasive precedent. It merely has to be a written opinion by the judge that provides an account of the judge's reasoning (i.e. not a per-curium-affirmed or an unwritten pronouncement from the bench such as the sustainment of an objection). Granted, such authorities will generally be given little weight, and would never be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but they still constitute caselaw. bd2412 T 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As we are trying to elucidate on the differences between "case law" and "lawsuit", especially in terms of article categorization, I think the fact that written opinions found on LexisNexis should not be the foundation for creating articles. (We might, however, use LexisNexis data as RS. But then editors might want to say "the article has a legal/judge opinion which is on LexisNexis, therefore it should be categorized as case law!") Let's confine the case law category to those articles about decisions rendered as case law. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with BD2412 on this. A case published on Lexis or Westlaw by a court which has the ability to establish precedent should be categorized as case law. Cases unpublished by a regional or official reporter, but where the opinion was rendered by such a court should be included. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we generally agree, but there are wrinkles that need ironing out. In general the Lexis/Westlaw publications simply reflect what the official reporters or regional reporters are putting out. In California, the courts will want citations to the Cal.App. or Cal. reports as opposed to CalRptr. citations. (Reason is the judges and court research attorneys have Cal.App./Cal. in their offices. This is no longer so much the case where everything is online.) Also, we have the Daily Journal "Daily Appellate Report", which gives us cases from SCOTUS, 9th Cir., and the Cal. supremes & appellate courts. So the Dec. 10th edition has Parthemore v. Col (Dec. 6, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 15982, about whether a prisoner who needs glasses & is injured must file an administrative claim before filing a lawsuit. The opinion rendered & published by the 3rd District is case law. So, was an opinion rendered by the court? Yes. Is it published? Yes. Is it case law? Yes (unless it gets "de-published"). But remember in Parthemore the trial court also rendered an opinion, in the form of a judgment. The trial court opinion was not published in the case reporters. But a diligent editor might find a newspaper report about the suit with enough digging. The issue in this discussion is whether the the opinion is case law/precedent. In fact, the terms are largely interchangeable. "Your Honor, I have precedent/authority/case law which supports the position of my client. I cite you to Parthemore v. Col." In sum, we cannot simply say "case law is where a court rendered an opinion." If the opinion is not published, it is not case law. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that an article about a lawsuit which incidentally happened to generate published opinions that are not themselves notable, should not be treated as a "caselaw" article. bd2412 T 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if the judgment is published in F. Supp., it is not caselaw. District courts do not establish precedent (even if they are cited as persuasive). GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're conflating the evaluative with the descriptive. An article that is fundamentally about a judicial opinion (i.e., about the written interpretation and application of the law rather than just "Smith sued Jones and Jones won") is best categorized as case law regardless of the precedential value of that opinion and regardless of the court that rendered it. You're not suggesting that we merely categorize Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as a "lawsuit" and not "copyright case law", are you, merely because it was a district court decision? The article is about an interpretation and application of copyright law, and one that has proven influential even though it is only persuasive authority and not binding authority.

I would also disagree with BD2412 that the case law categories should only be reserved for when the opinions themselves would have been notable. First, that's not always ascertainable if we're talking about a lower court opinion rendered in a lawsuit that was being covered by the press anyway. Second, the basic categorization threshold generally in Wikipedia is relevance and utility. Even if the article focuses on the lawsuit as a whole, did a court issue a written interpretation and application of the law, and is there something substantive for the article to say about that? Does it help a reader to have that article in a case law category in a particular subject area, as Bridgeman undoubtedly would? Or would it just be clutter to include in a case law category, such as a lawsuit that settled or was decided by rote verdict that "Party A offered more evidence and proved their case"? postdlf (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@postdlf, I think it depends on the case. We are not going to categorize O. J. Simpson murder case as "case law" merely because some rulings were made during the proceedings. The article mentions a few, such as the exclusion of a proferred item of evidence as hearsay, and the determination that Ron Goldman could garnish O.J.'s book profits, but gives no details about the reasoning behind them. bd2412 T 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles do not need to be notable because of a category in order to be grouped in that category. If an article is about a lawsuit, it goes in the lawsuits tree. If it's about case law, it goes in the case law tree. If it's about a lawsuit that is case law it goes in both even if it is notable for one and not the other. Christ Christie and Bruce Springsteen are notable for being from New Jersey while Count Basie and Antonin Scalia are notable for other reasons, but they all get put in the same People from New Jersey category.RevelationDirect (talk)

(edit conflict) @Postdlf. "The law to be found in the collection of reported cases that form all or part of the body of law within a given jurisdiction." CASELAW, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). I am, in fact, suggesting that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. be classified as a "lawsuit" instead of as "caselaw"—primarily because it is not caselaw. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Question The Category:United States district court cases exists under the Case Law category tree and has 210 articles. What parent category does it move to if it's not in case law? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think GregJackP is alone in that view that district court opinions are somehow never case law. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Having worked at several levels of the federal courts in the United States, all reasoned opinions can be treated under this title (and, in fact, I have seen many district court opinions reported in casebooks). I think GregJackP is focused on the law generated by binding precedents, but there are problems with that notion, since a binding precedent in one circuit is merely persuasive in other circuits, while even a district court judgment can be treated as binding precedent by other courts in that district, pursuant to local rules of the court. Of course, U.S. district court opinions are binding precedents over lower tribunals such as magistrates and bankruptcy judges; and as to future district courts inheriting the same case, under the law of the case doctrine. bd2412 T 14:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, Brigeman v Corel is both case law and a lawsuit. (And we can categorize it in both.) When we wish to cite the case as precedent, we write Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). United States v. Riggs was a criminal case, not a lawsuit, because the government made an accusation, not a civil complaint against Riggs. He appealed and a decision was published at 967 F. 2d 561. The 11th circuit cited U.S. v Weaver 920 F. 2d 1570 when issuing its decision re Rigg's appeal. Both the US v. Riggs and US v Weaver 11th circuit decisions are case law, but did not arise out of a law suit. With all this said, the real issue for the Project is who is enterprising enough to do needed work on the category scheme? – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, I agree with you on the Corel categorization. I wonder if also grouping it by "lawsuit" really adds anything to navigation though. I'm willing to help out with categorization but, obviously, my initial approach wasn't based on consensus so I need to better understand the other viewpoints. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Definition? There seems to be one aspect of case law that is formal where there is binding precedent based on the specific court and another that is informal where past wisdom ("reasoned opinions") informs future decisions. If we go with the former, we would almost need a grid to know which courts counted for the 29 countries in the case law tree and, for the latter, it would be pretty subjective. Obviously my proposal for 2 subsequent citations doesn't have consensus. So what standard should we use for categorizing an article as case law? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above, as well as BD2412's caveat in response about the mere existence of a (routine) ruling in a lawsuit or criminal proceeding not meriting a "case law" categorization for an article fundamentally about that lawsuit/proceeding (which I think is fully consistent with my comment). Basically, "Is it useful to a reader to do so?"

I'm also inclined to say that it's not useful to categorize an article as both "lawsuit" and "[subject] case law", as I think the lawsuit category has always been just to make sure an article has some appropriate category when there really isn't anything more substantive to say about the subject other than "this is about a lawsuit". It doesn't seem like there's any point to saying through categorization that "this article is about a court's decision on an issue of copyright law, and this was a lawsuit". postdlf (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Break

@Postdlf. GregJackP is alone in that view that district court opinions are somehow never case law. I don't believe that district court opinions are case law, although I don't believe that I'm alone in that view. I seem to remember a case that Walmart or Kmart or something-mart appealed a district court decision because they didn't want it to set a "bad precedent"—and Judge Posner pointed out that a district court did not establish precedent but that his appellate decision did.
@BD2412. GregJackP is focused on the law generated by binding precedents. Exactly. If it is not binding precedent somewhere, it is not case law. Anything can be persuasive authority, even an article in a newspaper (granted, it probably would not be very persuasive, but I've seen all kind of cites. My view and argument is that unless it is binding precedent for trial level courts somewhere, it should not be listed as case law. That doesn't mean that law of the case or res judicata issues should be treated the same as case law. I realize that this is a technical definition, perhaps hyper-technical, but that's how I think we should address it. I'm willing of course to go along with whatever consensus is. I also don't think that the inclusion of an opinion in a casebook should be determinative, there are plenty of examples of that, such as Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (on the definition of "chicken"); Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y 2009) (browserwrap); etc. Those all exist to illustrate a rule of law, not to be determinative of precedent.
@Srich32977. I'm not sure why you are pointing out the distinction between a lawsuit and a criminal case, or the correct way to cite a case. We could also discuss parallel citation, as some states require, or the use of shortform cites. None of that has anything to do with the categorization of the articles, or whether it is caselaw or not.
GregJackP Boomer! 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply demonstrating my vast wealth of knowledge in this subject – law. All of the other stuff I know, I learned on WP. But you are correct, the concern here is setting up category trees. I've been thinking about a workable outline. – S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Careful - I haven't used bad language towards you, like <shudder>"outline"</end shudder>. :p GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Detroit bankruptcy

I have placed Detroit bankruptcy in Category:United States bankruptcy case law. This is probably not the correct procedure, but I am not sure how else to proceed. Any help would be appreciated.

The recent ruling in the Detroit case, on Chapter 9 eligibility, which included a court comment that the Chapter 9 plan could impair vested public pension benefits, has the potential to belong in that category. But we should probably first see what the appellate courts think of the ruling. --Pechmerle (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see that WikiProject Law has rated Detroit bankruptcy as low priority. I find this hard to believe - I am sure the precedents that will be set in these legal proceedings will be ground breaking.XOttawahitech (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the article and concur with it being low priority as far as WP:Law is concerned. At this point in time, it is a straight-forward bankruptcy case. It may go higher later, but from a law standpoint it is just not there yet. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Detroit's Chapter 9 is not "a straight-forward bankruptcy case." It has already produced a ruling without precedent in the history of U.S. bankruptcy law: whether a municipality (defined as the Bankruptcy Code does, i.e. more broadly than city) can through a bankruptcy plan impair vested public pension benefits. (Judge Rhodes said yes, in his lengthy, published ruling.) That issue is already the subject of a motion seeking a direct appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Bond-buying institutions, public employee unions, and financially-distressed governmental units all across the country are following this case very closely. --Pechmerle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't case law at, so I removed the category. A category for communities that filed for bankruptcy might be appropriate. I don't know if one exists....William 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: case law "is a principle or rule established in a previous dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process". So why do you say this is not case law? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it isn't a principle or rule established in a previous dispute(aka precedent) at this time. This is still a pending bankruptcy. It being case law, if it will ever be considered that, is something off in the future at this moment....William 15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look a the Opinion regarding eligibility - isn't it case law? XOttawahitech (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It iay be the largest city/municipal bankruptcy, but it probably isn't the largest government bankruptcy, which probably goes to Orange County, California (a county, or subdivision of the state, not a municipal corporation) for its bankruptcy in 1994 covering a $20.6 billion debt pool in which it lost about $1.64 billion in the matter of a year or so (in 1994 dollars). IOW there's nothing really special about Detroit, especially from a legal standpoint, at least not yet. Int21h (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Detroit is the largest government bankruptcy case, ever. Orange County might have initially looked larger, but the Orange County Investment Pool (where the County treasurer did his worst interest rate bet screw ups) was declared ineligible for Ch. 9. As I note above, the public pension benefit issue is a "really special" element of the Detroit case. It's true that we shall see whether Judge Rhodes's ruling that vested public pension benefits can be impaired in Ch. 9 holds up on appeal. But as of now his ruling is a major event in bankruptcy law nationally, and practitioners in the field are considering it as such. (P.S. I am not involved in the case, nor do I live in Detroit or Michigan. Even from where I sit, in California, both the case and Judge Rhodes's ruling on the pension issue have major importance.) --Pechmerle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Civil violation the same as Summary offence?

I see Civil violation has been redirected to Summary offence in 2010. Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what is meant by "civil violation" but "summary offence" in England and Wales refers to a criminal offence (i.e. not something that is tried in a "civil" court) so I suspect the answer is "no". Francis Davey (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In some states of the United States (such as California), unlike most of the world, all crimes must be tried by a jury (per the California Constitution). Since the legislature has decided not to afford jury trials for some violations, they cannot lawfully be considered crimes, and thus are often considered civil (probably at common law). In addition, almost all states (constitutionally) restrict imprisonment for non-criminal debts (e.g., debtor's prisons). That's my understanding. While summary offences at English common law are mostly similar, they differ in their allowance of non-jury crimes. So no, not the same, but more similar than any other categorization. Int21h (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that what we end up with is a mess though. Nothing in the article Summary offence really explains what you have said. Rather it tells me that in California there are no "summary offences" as I would (and the article would) understand them. It sounds like a "civil violation" is considered to be in a different category to summary offences anyway. I would suggest a separate article on "civil violation" that explained what they are - giving specific examples - would be really useful to make that clear. I don't think imprisonment for non-criminal debts is relevant at all. Francis Davey (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well... Every state calls it something different, and has different case law on the subject. There is also the question of what they are called. "Civil violation" is probably a term from one state that is not used in the others; same goes for infraction, traffic violation, etc. They are also based on the English common law view of summary offenses, or at least the federal and California case law classifies them as such.

IMO California's practice is in line with Blackstone's description of a summary offense, i.e. "for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those acts of parliament ... In these there is no intervention of a jury ...". Blackstone does not define summary offenses as criminal, just that they are conducted without a jury. I see California's practice as a subset, a restriction on the definition whereby these "summary" offenses may not be considered criminal, nor may violators be imprisoned.

I mentioned the lack of imprisonment for civil debt because a civil violation only causes is civil debt; in other words, you cannot be imprisoned for a civil violation under the theory that debtor's prisons were a common law practice known to the Framers of the Constitution as an exception to a jury trial (vis-a-vis the common law petty crime jury trial exception analysis). Int21h (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, OK. I think what you are saying is that terminology differs so much that having a separate "civil violation" page is not sensible. That may be right. Summary offences were (in Blackstone's time) criminal of course - they were routinely tried by justices of the peace. Imprisonment for debt was not criminal, it was civil. You issued a judgment summons against a judgment debtor and committed them to prison until they paid. I am not sure how that is relevant to the California approach - but maybe in some warped way it is. Francis Davey (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that the delineation between summary offenses and whatever these other things are is not clear, but the argument can be (and is IMO) made that there is at least a modicum of relevance between them. If the new article is composed of laws that are as dissimilar from each other as they are from summary offenses, that is not really a solution to split them into a new article. Any solution, IMO, needs more material from more states with more detail and more sources. It was hard enough for me to find Ex parte Wong, which I basically used to prove a modicum of relevance to California law, and Blackstone's Commentaries mention. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pardon

Wikipedia's article titled Pardon says

a pardon does not set aside the conviction

But at dictionary.law.com it says

A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent.

The latter had been my understanding. Can someone cite a source for assertions made, or else correct them? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(Two current events involve pardons: the highly publicized posthumous pardon of Alan Turing by the Queen, and editorials in the New York Times and the New Yorker proposing various degrees of clemency or pardon or the like for Edward Snowden.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A simple response would be to say that it depends on what the statute says and who is doing the interpreting. To differentiate between your two listed definitions would require further definition of what "as if it had never occurred" and "treated as innocent" means. According to that definition, at least to me, says that innocent people were imprisoned, which IMO would be an incorrect interpretation when considering US federal law at least. Even at the US federal level, 27 CFR 478.142 shows its not a simple definition (which lists pardon, expunction, reversal, setting aside of a conviction, other proceedings rendering a conviction nugatory, and a restoration of civil rights, separately). A pardon is not the same as a reversal or nullification as I understand the case law. 27 CFR 478.142 does not say they are innocent; 27 CFR 478.142 says that a pardon "remove[s] any disability which otherwise would be imposed". If a pardon meant innocence, then it would be superfluous to discuss legal disabilities concerning firearms vis-a-vis an innocent person. If a pardon meant innocence, then I would assume a pardon would also mean a whole slew of other legal oddities. Removing disabilities imposed by a conviction and saying one is innocent are two related, yet subtly different, assertions. "Innocence" itself is hard to define. There is case law to the effect that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent", and the only setting I have seen someone declared innocent is through a declaratory judgment or something (whatever it was, it was an equitable thing, not some procedure defined at law). In any event, I'm not sure how reliable ALM (company) commercial works such as CourtTV and law.com are for legal definitions. (Imagine a world where Wikipedia didn't exist and people had to rely on definitions like that! Yeesh!) Int21h (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment, Kitchen v. Herbert

23:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding same‐sex marriage in Utah, RfC here, on whether to include a new map‐color for Utah in‐light‐of the stay issued by SCOTUS ― Info por favor (talk)

Rationale for the use of national arms in a gallery?

Please give your input at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_44#Gallery of country coats of arms. Arms Jones (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary legislation, definition of

There's a discussion at Talk:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Primary Legislation concerning the meaning of the term "primary legislation". Informed comments would be welcome there. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The "misinterpretation" of common-law marriage

I've commented on some seeming contradictions between several different articles touching on "common-law marriage" here. Input welcome on how best to reconcile these. 84.203.32.187 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Created new article on Chicago Options Associates

• Chicago Options Associates

I've gone ahead and created a new article on Chicago Options Associates.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Enlisting Wikiproject Law to get Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to FA

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance and WikiProject Intelligence, we've been discussing trying to push the 4th Amendment from GA to FA. There's a peer review request on it, but no reviewing so far.

Would people from WikiProject Law like to help assess and improve Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)