The result was: yoinked[
April Fools!] by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
** ALT1: ... that
Nebraska was once sued by a gremlin? Source:
https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1974/39119-1.html
Created by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. QPQ confirmed. No close paraphasing or copyright violations.
Earwig is clear.
I don't think that the style of the case (parties and the denomination of the parties) supports the proposed ALTs. While I consider them whimsical and amusing. But literally, the car was the Defendant, and not the Plaintiff (i.e., the one who brings the suit).
I don't want to be subject to
sanctions, which
have been promised, foretold or at least implied. The references I added to the article do support the original hook. Given that this nomination, since it came from
User:The C of E, will be subjected to increased scrutiny, we must give it '
the punctilio of an honor most certain.' If someone restores the original hook, then I think this is GTG. Given the
WP:Topic ban I don't expect
User:The C of E can restore the hook, so I have not bothered to post a note on his talk page, since it is
moot and a vain exercise.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It was brought by the owner of an American Motors Rambler Gremlin, whose car was seized by the American state of Nebraska on the grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. An appeal was made against the forfeiture on the grounds of a lack of due process.- of course, the sourcing of the article is about half PRIMARY and half "lists of court cases with funny names", so it might be an AfD candidate anyway (as something not notable, just skirts the line of legal case notability, for the purpose of a DYK nom); I would restore the original if the situation was clear, but will remove approval of the alt as that also isn't clear. I have no interest in clarifying; if you want to work on it (or nom at AfD), I can review. Kingsif ( talk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The case the article is about is clearly about the (owner of the) Gremlin sueing Nebraska, not the other way around. So what case is the hook actually referring to, and which sources support this (ignoring that at least some of these sources are very lightweight).
I can understand people at first being confused by the case name being the reverse order of who sued who, but I don't get that people still try to approve this now, or claim that these sources somehow support the hook. Fram ( talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
That particular case illustrates that, even where a crime is charged, civil asset forfeiture can still be the instrument of terrible injustice: Police seized the Gremlin after arresting its owner for mere marijuana possession, saying it had been used to 'transport' marijuana. The seizure was upheld by the state supreme court.
If police suspect a property is somehow attached to a crime, they can seize the property and, unlike most other legal actions, the burden then shifts to the owner to prove that the property is innocent. That phrasing sounds odd, but the suit is considered in rem, meaning against the property and not the person who owned the property.
Here are the sources.
- 3. in rem jurisidiction (in rem) A court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property including the power to seize and hold it. Also termed jurisdiction in rem. See IN REM Cf. personal jurisdiction. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 856.
- 4. in rem (in rem) adj. [“Against a thing”] involving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing. — also termed (archaically) – in rem, adv. See action in rem under ACTION. Cf. IN PERSONAM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henr Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.
- 5. “An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the court determines the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely as between themselves, but also as against all persons at any time dealing with them or the property upon which the court had adjudicated.” R.H. Graveson, Conflicts of Law 98 (7th ed. 1974) quoted in Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.
Your disparagement of me is being ignored.
You see the case name, but you do not understand the case name and its significance.
I am through debating this. For a thousand dollars on the mahogany I can be retained to further research this. (I was being ironic. So don't mischaracterize this as some kind of legal threat.)
Best regards. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Here from WT:LAW. Not a Nebraskan lawyer, so I'll just ask [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], do you have another example of a case named in the [Person] v. [Object] format? JBchrch talk 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Also here from WT:LAW. As I understand it, the question is whether the suit was commenced by the state or by the owner of the car. The confusion is understandable, since practice varies from state to state. However, in this case the suit was commenced by the state. We know this for three reasons. First, the statute under which the case was brought, then Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-4135 but now recodified as Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, states that a petition shall be filed in district court by the party seizing the same. Second, the style of the case names the State of Nebraska first. While some courts of appeal list the appellant rather than the plaintiff first (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court does this), we can tell from the case that the State was the appellee, so it must have been the plaintiff. Third, the dissenting opinion by Justice Clinton refers to the owner of the car as the defendant. Technically, of course, the “defendant” was the car itself, but in practical effect the owner was the defendant, and he/the car therefore could not be the plaintiff. John M Baker ( talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
*6. action in rem (in rem) An action determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves, but also against all persons at any time claing an interest in that property. – also termed (in Roman law) actio in rem, actio realis. See also IN REM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 30.
You have merely established that you are 'easily confused.' Hopefully the other editors aren't. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it isAs a quick resonse: 1) the hook doesn't say that the State sued a car (which would be unexceptional), it says that the State sued a gremlin, which is funny and doesn't happen everyday. 2) Articles about higher court cases typically include the entire case history: pick any article at WP:FA § Law as an example. JBchrch talk 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was: yoinked[
April Fools!] by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
** ALT1: ... that
Nebraska was once sued by a gremlin? Source:
https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1974/39119-1.html
Created by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. QPQ confirmed. No close paraphasing or copyright violations.
Earwig is clear.
I don't think that the style of the case (parties and the denomination of the parties) supports the proposed ALTs. While I consider them whimsical and amusing. But literally, the car was the Defendant, and not the Plaintiff (i.e., the one who brings the suit).
I don't want to be subject to
sanctions, which
have been promised, foretold or at least implied. The references I added to the article do support the original hook. Given that this nomination, since it came from
User:The C of E, will be subjected to increased scrutiny, we must give it '
the punctilio of an honor most certain.' If someone restores the original hook, then I think this is GTG. Given the
WP:Topic ban I don't expect
User:The C of E can restore the hook, so I have not bothered to post a note on his talk page, since it is
moot and a vain exercise.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It was brought by the owner of an American Motors Rambler Gremlin, whose car was seized by the American state of Nebraska on the grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. An appeal was made against the forfeiture on the grounds of a lack of due process.- of course, the sourcing of the article is about half PRIMARY and half "lists of court cases with funny names", so it might be an AfD candidate anyway (as something not notable, just skirts the line of legal case notability, for the purpose of a DYK nom); I would restore the original if the situation was clear, but will remove approval of the alt as that also isn't clear. I have no interest in clarifying; if you want to work on it (or nom at AfD), I can review. Kingsif ( talk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The case the article is about is clearly about the (owner of the) Gremlin sueing Nebraska, not the other way around. So what case is the hook actually referring to, and which sources support this (ignoring that at least some of these sources are very lightweight).
I can understand people at first being confused by the case name being the reverse order of who sued who, but I don't get that people still try to approve this now, or claim that these sources somehow support the hook. Fram ( talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
That particular case illustrates that, even where a crime is charged, civil asset forfeiture can still be the instrument of terrible injustice: Police seized the Gremlin after arresting its owner for mere marijuana possession, saying it had been used to 'transport' marijuana. The seizure was upheld by the state supreme court.
If police suspect a property is somehow attached to a crime, they can seize the property and, unlike most other legal actions, the burden then shifts to the owner to prove that the property is innocent. That phrasing sounds odd, but the suit is considered in rem, meaning against the property and not the person who owned the property.
Here are the sources.
- 3. in rem jurisidiction (in rem) A court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property including the power to seize and hold it. Also termed jurisdiction in rem. See IN REM Cf. personal jurisdiction. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 856.
- 4. in rem (in rem) adj. [“Against a thing”] involving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing. — also termed (archaically) – in rem, adv. See action in rem under ACTION. Cf. IN PERSONAM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henr Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.
- 5. “An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the court determines the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely as between themselves, but also as against all persons at any time dealing with them or the property upon which the court had adjudicated.” R.H. Graveson, Conflicts of Law 98 (7th ed. 1974) quoted in Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.
Your disparagement of me is being ignored.
You see the case name, but you do not understand the case name and its significance.
I am through debating this. For a thousand dollars on the mahogany I can be retained to further research this. (I was being ironic. So don't mischaracterize this as some kind of legal threat.)
Best regards. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Here from WT:LAW. Not a Nebraskan lawyer, so I'll just ask [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], do you have another example of a case named in the [Person] v. [Object] format? JBchrch talk 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Also here from WT:LAW. As I understand it, the question is whether the suit was commenced by the state or by the owner of the car. The confusion is understandable, since practice varies from state to state. However, in this case the suit was commenced by the state. We know this for three reasons. First, the statute under which the case was brought, then Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-4135 but now recodified as Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, states that a petition shall be filed in district court by the party seizing the same. Second, the style of the case names the State of Nebraska first. While some courts of appeal list the appellant rather than the plaintiff first (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court does this), we can tell from the case that the State was the appellee, so it must have been the plaintiff. Third, the dissenting opinion by Justice Clinton refers to the owner of the car as the defendant. Technically, of course, the “defendant” was the car itself, but in practical effect the owner was the defendant, and he/the car therefore could not be the plaintiff. John M Baker ( talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
*6. action in rem (in rem) An action determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves, but also against all persons at any time claing an interest in that property. – also termed (in Roman law) actio in rem, actio realis. See also IN REM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 30.
You have merely established that you are 'easily confused.' Hopefully the other editors aren't. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it isAs a quick resonse: 1) the hook doesn't say that the State sued a car (which would be unexceptional), it says that the State sued a gremlin, which is funny and doesn't happen everyday. 2) Articles about higher court cases typically include the entire case history: pick any article at WP:FA § Law as an example. JBchrch talk 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)