![]() | Welcome to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases! |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resources | Members | Style guide | Plan |
Article alerts | Reports | Accomplishments | Feedback |
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
What should be done with the deadlinks to slip opinion that have been deleted from SupremeCourt.gov? Currently, this includes opinions from 2015 and earlier, such as this.
I am inclined toward the latter options. SilverLocust 💬 03:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I noted at Talk:Younger v. Harris#Two different lists of three exceptions that the article seems to be inconsistent and provides two different lists of exceptions; it would be great if an expert could take a look. Joriki ( talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I have started a draft at Draft:Berkovitz v. United States, a rather important case involving the liability of a government agency when it screws up a non-discretionary function. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve suggested some important edits to the page that need review. The firm has argued several noteworthy cases in front of SCOTUS so if there is an editor here who could be of assistance, I (employee of the firm) would welcome the feedback. Talk:Gibson_Dunn#February_2024_Requested_Edits CaseyatLeicesterStreet ( talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I was noticing the other day that the Internet Archive has scanned a lot of volumes of the Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court in the last year or two. These are very comprehensive (to a fault...) sources, and many of them are difficult to find online because of errors in the metadata, so I figured I'd list what's available here in case anyone finds it useful:
Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
A source that primarily deals with U.S. law, especially the Supreme Court, is currently being discussed at RSN. WikiProject members are invited to join the discussion. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The
style guide currently recommends "Opinion of the Court" as a section title (or one of two possible section titles). This strikes me as somewhat crosswise of
MOS:HEAD, especially the familiar injunction to [n]ot redundantly refer back to the subject of the article
. Given that articles covered by this style guide are specifically about Supreme Court proceedings, is there any reason not to shorten this header to "Opinion"? --
Visviva (
talk)
04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Welcome to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases! |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resources | Members | Style guide | Plan |
Article alerts | Reports | Accomplishments | Feedback |
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
What should be done with the deadlinks to slip opinion that have been deleted from SupremeCourt.gov? Currently, this includes opinions from 2015 and earlier, such as this.
I am inclined toward the latter options. SilverLocust 💬 03:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I noted at Talk:Younger v. Harris#Two different lists of three exceptions that the article seems to be inconsistent and provides two different lists of exceptions; it would be great if an expert could take a look. Joriki ( talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I have started a draft at Draft:Berkovitz v. United States, a rather important case involving the liability of a government agency when it screws up a non-discretionary function. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve suggested some important edits to the page that need review. The firm has argued several noteworthy cases in front of SCOTUS so if there is an editor here who could be of assistance, I (employee of the firm) would welcome the feedback. Talk:Gibson_Dunn#February_2024_Requested_Edits CaseyatLeicesterStreet ( talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I was noticing the other day that the Internet Archive has scanned a lot of volumes of the Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court in the last year or two. These are very comprehensive (to a fault...) sources, and many of them are difficult to find online because of errors in the metadata, so I figured I'd list what's available here in case anyone finds it useful:
Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
A source that primarily deals with U.S. law, especially the Supreme Court, is currently being discussed at RSN. WikiProject members are invited to join the discussion. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The
style guide currently recommends "Opinion of the Court" as a section title (or one of two possible section titles). This strikes me as somewhat crosswise of
MOS:HEAD, especially the familiar injunction to [n]ot redundantly refer back to the subject of the article
. Given that articles covered by this style guide are specifically about Supreme Court proceedings, is there any reason not to shorten this header to "Opinion"? --
Visviva (
talk)
04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)