Talk:Arizona v. Fulminante

Untitled
Someone with more legal expertise may want to look at how I cited case opinions because I'm not sure I got all of them correct. This case produced a very decided court. Just look how the opinions are cited from Findlaw:

''
 * ''WHITE, J., delivered an opinion, Parts I, II, and IV of which are for the Court, and filed a dissenting opinion in Part III. MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined Parts I, II, III, and IV of that opinion; SCALIA, J., joined Parts I and II; and KENNEDY, J., joined Parts I and IV. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered an opinion, Part II of which is for the Court, and filed a dissenting opinion in Parts I and III., post, p. 302. O'CONNOR, J., joined Parts I, II, and III of that opinion; KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined Parts I and II; and SCALIA, J., joined Parts II and III. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 313.

I did the best I could to clarify in the listing on wikipedia, but if someone and make it even easier to understand that would be great. -- Johnny06man 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a pretty decent start. I've added to the article, but the main thing I changed with the various opinions is that I called part III of White's opinion a concurrence. I know I'm disagreeing with Findlaw, but part III agrees with the outcome the rest of the court reaches, and only disagrees on reasoning. If it were a stand-alone opinion, everyone would call it a concurrence in the result. Tikwriter (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates
I was cleaning up vandalism on various articles by 205.155.216.40 and noted he had changed the dates on this article. I reverted his edits, assuming they were vandalism, but someone more knowedgeable than me needs to double check them. --A. B. 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)