Category talk:United States Supreme Court cases

This category is rather large. Might we divide it up by Chief Justice? john k 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Most people who aren't lawyers aren't going to know which Court decided the case; it's much easier to browse through alphabetically by case name if everything is on one tier, even if there is a lot of them. I've thought about CJ-specific categories, but as a supplement to this category, not as a partition.  Postdlf 23:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's easy enough to look up the years for each Chief Justice - more difficult, I suppose, but there are many other instances of not terribly easy categorization on wikipedia. And some cases are certainly known by chief justice - the decisions of the Marshall Court or the Warren Court, in particular. john k 23:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a concrete format desired for wiki case articles? I've noticed an extremely useful sidebar on some supreme court cases MGM v. Grokster but not on others Lemon v. Kurtzman. Also, should this be used for non-SC cases? (have I completely missed somewhere this usefull information already exists?) Darker Dreams 30 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)

Conley
Where is Conley v. Gibson that old standard of civil procedure standing for notice pleading.Bona Fides 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
On reviewing several of these articles, the outstanding issue is the linking of common terms. I wonder whether editors in this field might update themselves on the style guideline WRT this matter. I've just unlinked "children", "Bible" (not linked on first occurrence, though) and "education" in this article.

A great deal of gnoming is required to clean up this aspect. Please ask me if you require more information.

Thank you in advance. Tony  (talk)  00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/ArvinTopper. SCOTUS articles are also routinely roughed up by bored kids taking civics classes.  The handful of long-term editors in this area know what they're doing from what I've seen.  postdlf (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unanimous Decisions
Is there a list of unanimous Supreme Court Decisions somewhere? Would anybody be interested in compiling one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasor (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be useful because the reasons why some opinions are unanimous are too variable; it would be a comparison purely of superficial coincidence rather than any substantive connection or similarity between the different cases. The unanimous opinions in recent years just seem to be the least controversial ones (and consequently the least "interesting" ones on a subjective level).  Roberts has proven himself incapable of, or not interested in, making sure that the Court's difficult cases get a greater consensus behind them.  By contrast, CJ Warren has been noted by historians for going out of his way to lobby and persuade justices to join opinions, to try and give the Court's decisions a greater aura of legitimacy through unanimity.  And if you bring the whole history of the Court into it...initially every justice authored an opinion in the case, so there were no unanimous opinions.
 * If on the other hand, you're merely talking about unanimous decisions rather than unanimous opinions (i.e., decisions in which some justices concurred in the judgment, but not in the majority's opinion), then that gets even less useful. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we would be talking about the majority of the opinions ever issued. Depending on the era of the court, unanimous decisions have run to as much as 80%. bd2412  T 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Except there are many touting the unanimous decisions vs Obama. So a list of Unanimous decisions to compare vs other Presidents would actually be quite useful. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I could actually use that list in analyzing trends across tenure in line with a Levinsons Life Cycle Theory. This list would allow people to examine the different trends in majority opinions vs dissenting opinions without the confound of unanimous decisions. Anything contentious is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbatey1011 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)