Talk:United States Court of Claims

Name

Why call the article "Court of Claims (United States)" when every other U.S. gov't tribunal has "United States" in front of it, not in parentheses behind it? I'm just asking for the sake of consistency. Besides, it was always referred to by its full name in official literature, so it wouldn't be confused with state or local courts of claims. Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnE (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 October 2006

The official name of the court was the “Court of Claims”. The official name of other government tribunals may begin with “United States”, but that is not true of this particular court. The parenthetical disambiguator was added to the article title because there was (and is) a court also named the “Court of Claims” in Great Britain and so the article Court of Claims is a disambiguation page.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked the pertinent statutes, and you are right. Sorry for bringing it up.

— JohnnE 17:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On further investigation, I have discovered that the name of the court was changed to United States Court of Claims with enactment of the Judicial Code in 1948. The reason for the change is not stated in the reviser's notes in the legislative history.

JohnnE 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent catch. Now that I know what to look for, I've found that the “Amendments” annotation to 28 U.S.C. § 171 shows that the court was named the “United States Court of Claims” when it was abolished in 1982.

— DLJessup (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move per WP:BOLD. OK, after two weeks of being relisted, and not much debate, this has to be closed somehow. Having read the arguments below and above, I think it should be moved if not for other reason, then for consistency with others in United States federal courts. Duja 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Court of Claims (United States) → United States Court of Claims — Court was known as both the “Court of Claims” and the “United States Court of Claims” over its lifespan. Court of Claims was its appellation for 93 years, while U.S. Court of Claims was only valid for 34 years. Nonetheless, the new name would avoid the use of a parenthetical disambiguator. DLJessup (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Neutral. I proposed this move because JohnnE demonstrated that “United States Court of Claims” was the official name of this court for some of its history, so there is a definite case to be made for the move. There is also a definite case to be made against the move since it appears to have been more commonly known as simply the “Court of Claims”. (For example, the Federal Judicial Center refers to it exclusively as the “Court of Claims”, and they refer to just about every other federal tribunal with the “United States” prefix.) I would like to get feedback as to which name would be more appropriate. — DLJessup (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested merger of the History section from United States Court of Federal Claims

I just made a comment at United States Court of Federal Claims and wanted to copy it here to ensure all interested editors can see.

This is not (yet) a formal merger proposal, but it seems to me that pretty much the entire History section of this article as it relates to anything before 1982 ought to be moved into the article for United States Court of Claims, to the extent it isn't there already. Then this article could briefly explain how this court descended from that court, and direct the reader to the other article for coverage of that period. It does not make a lot of sense to me to have the 1855-1982 history of this court both here and there, where inconsistencies can arise -- and, in fact, the articles are not identical, despite covering the exact same institution for the exact same period. Before I take the time to do it, though, I wanted to put a note here to see if there is any disagreement, or if someone else would like to make the edit, since I'm not sure when I would get to it. Thanks. --EightYearBreak (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to have any discussion in response over on that page. --EightYearBreak (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)