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

United States: Government Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Law Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

I created Varnum_v._Brien_Attorneys to list all the interests fighting behind the scenes in this decision. I am not adept at formating and making pretty pages. If someone could take a look at it and say if it is adequate, that might help. MasFina ( talk) 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to start trouble here, but I'm not sure we need a separate page to list the attorneys. Why not just put all the information into one article? -- Eastlaw ^talk ⁄  _contribs 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree - in fact, I don't see the relevance of listing most of these lawyers. Certainly the lawyers for the parties should be listed, and possibly a few for significant amicus filers, but I don't see a need to list all of them. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 01:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That's clearly not the complete Westlaw citation in the article lead, but in any event we should provide a citation to a print reporter, either the West regional for Iowa or the Iowa state reporter. Postdlf ( talk) 15:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The document cited by this article as the district court ruling appears to be a brief by the parties, not a judicial decision: it is signed by counsel, not a judge, and uses argumentative language like "The Court is urged" and "Plaintiff alleges". Please tell me if I am wrong, but otherwise I am going to remove the citations, rename the external link, and try to track down the text of the actual ruling. -- Padraic 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You're correct. It's wrong on Lambda Legal's site, too. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply