Shortcut
Resources
Members
Style guide
Plan
Article alerts
Reports
Accomplishments
Feedback

Slip opinions and preliminary prints[edit]

I have a couple small changes in mind about how we link to opinions, which I welcome comments on:

Adumbrativus (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, I am not opposed to commenting Template:caselaw source out, so it can be quickly unhidden when the case is decided. Adding the Oyez link when cert is granted might be worth it, however, as the case page on that website is created almost immediately after cert is granted. Regarding the second, my view is that keeping both links is appropriate, both because the slip opinion avoids the watermark, and because the Supreme Court is making it difficult to find the slip opinion links after the preliminary print is added. However, retaining the link on the Wikipedia page for each case allows readers to access the slip opinion, where it might otherwise be impossible to locate the link. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old slip opinion deadlinks[edit]

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)[reply]

I would think those are separate issues (i.e., whether to link the final U.S. Reports and whether to remove the old slip opinions). Also, let me revise what I am suggesting. These could both be implemented very easily:
(Also, I am just referring to removing the links in the "external links" ((Caselaw source)) section, not in any references that for whatever reason link to the slip opinion.) SilverLocust 💬 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just switch the deadlinks to archived links for now, if there is no objection to that. SilverLocust 💬 04:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we definitely should be including a link to the U.S. Reports bound volume PDF, with the #page in the manner that Masem suggests. (That is, for everything not old enough to be included in the Library of Congress collection [3] with its friendlier non-1000 page PDFs.) It's formally what's published, can contain minor revisions, and has the page numbering that people will cite. But yes this is a separate issue. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in Younger v. Harris[edit]

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)[reply]

@Joriki: I believe the first list is what was set forth in the case, and the second list is what was eventually refined by the courts to be the doctrine emanating from the case. BD2412 T 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Berkovitz v. United States‎[edit]

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)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[edit]

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)[reply]

Edits needed to Gibson Dunn[edit]

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)[reply]

I've replied at WT:WikiProject Law#Please weigh in on Gibson Dunn. SilverLocust 💬 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes Devise histories[edit]

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)[reply]

RSN Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

"Opinion of the Court"[edit]

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)[reply]

"Opinion" would cause confusion when there are also dissenting, concurring, etc. opinions. But "majority opinion" works, as would "decision" in some cases (I've used both before). At any rate, that style guide mainly reflects one or two editors' opinions, so while it contains some useful advice, feel free to just do whatever makes the most sense to you in any given instance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories