Talk:Vosburg v. Putney

Factually Incorrect and Misleading

• Orton wrote for the majority in 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. (the first appeal);

VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 276

October 20, 1890, Argued; November 5, 1890, Decided

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.

OPINION: ORTON, J.

• Lyon wrote for the majority in 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. (the second appeal);

VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 234

October 26, 1891, Argued; November 17, 1891, Decided

OPINION: LYON, J.

• defendant (Δ) was George Putney not Hiram Putney;
• plaintiff (Π) was Andrew Vosburg not Jonathan Vosburg Wermsker (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Father was Seth Vosburg not Andrew Vosburg Wermsker (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• legally material facts are munged in with irrelevant facts (parents, jobs, wealth);
• legally material facts are munged ad hoc from both appellate actions;
• the rule of law is entirely obfuscated;
• procedural history and facts are intermingled;
• issue and holding are munged, and thus incorrect (mixing actions);
• most importantly, there are ZERO citations/references.

Due to the sheer volume of changes necessary to hack this into something accurate (or something that won't shame a 1L under professorial cross), I submit this as justification to reboot this topic with a ground-up rewrite (which I am working on now) Wermsker (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

I've completed the rewrite. Mixed audience targeting, I tried to follow these guiding principles:

1. accurate
2. informative
3. concise
4. student friendly

I was less interested in appealing to the "fully informed" audience that can just as easily read the full case.

I didn't reference page numbers because many editions exist for some of the casebooks. I err'd on the side of credibly verifiable.

While I go a bit deeper than any single casebook, there are some professors that have turned this one case into a full semester launch pad. So I didn't even try to mount a full analysis with all the potential forks.

If, upon reading this rewrite, you become violently ill or emotionally unstable [[File:|18px|link=]], take the appropriate measures to remedy your discomfort. ☯ wermsker (ATC) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is moot. [1] Wermsker (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)