This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases 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 has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Law 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations: Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

I'm still a relative noob with wikipedia, and am still not sure which information in cases should be included, and which should be omitted (also, I know nothing about law I'm not a law student). There's a section of Paquete on whether the court even had the right to here the case in the first place. I felt this detracted from the most important part of the case which was merging customary international law with domestic law. should this have been included anyways? -- Traderjoe56 ( talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Traderjoe56 reply

Well I think that the holding needs to be more related to the situation in the case - not the general principle that can be extrapolated from the holding.

What I mean is that you can't seize private fishing ships in wartime if they are not enemy combatants, or harboring them. Gautam ^Discuss 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply