This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
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
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I apologize that this is very sparse. But I figured it'd be best to get the ball rolling if anyone knows more about this case and/or proper Wiki formatting for SCOTUS cases. Ando228 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unless the article contains some prose soon, it is going to get deleted as being empty. Even if it is just a line explaining what the article is actually about (something like "Charlton v. Kelly was a...") please write it- seems a shame to lose an article like this. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is the info box not enough? The problem is I really don't have time to read the entire case, look up subsequent cases and the like. Since it pertains to extradition treaties, it's still relevant but I'm no expert on law. Ando228 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
What you've added is fine to deal with the urgent threat of it being deleted. Further expansion could be easily done by the addition of reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
