Talk:Fish v. Kobach

Closing arguments
As I'm writing this, closing arguments are scheduled for later today. However, this trial has lasted much longer than originally predicted, so that schedule may not hold. This seems to be hot news, as witnessed by the number of "External Links" I've included. I plan to add more text later today. However, I'm posting it now, in case someone else might be working on an article on this same topic: By posting more smaller pieces, we can limit the scope of potential conflicts. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Fish v. Schwab?
Document 573 in this case in the US District Court for the District of Kansas filed 01/18/19 says, "Plaintiffs sued Defendant  Kris  W.  Kobach  in  his  official  capacity  as Secretary of State  for  the  State of Kansas.  Kobach  served in  that  capacity  until noon on January 14, 2019. At that time, his successor, Scott Schwab, was sworn in  as  Kansas  Secretary  of  State.  By  operation  of  law,  Secretary  Schwab  “is automatically substituted as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)."

Should this substitution be cited in this present article with "Fish v. Schwab" listed as an alternative title and with a redirect?

I'm not an attorney, and I have no substantive experience with Wikipedia articles on other court cases. For the moment, I think not, since the case is essentially long over.

However, the case is on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver. If Schwab decides to push that appeal, that could change this assessment. Then I could use help in understanding how Wikipedia has tended to handle this kind of thing when other cases have been appealed.

That may not be out of the question, because the Wikipedia article on [Scott Schwab] reported that "In 2017, Schwab announced that he would be a candidate for Kansas Secretary of State, [and he] said he was not interested in rolling back standards crafted by Secretary Kris Kobach."

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest Wikipedia should handle a case like this, where one of the parties is involved because of one's official capacity as a public servant and is replaced with the case is still active? In this case, Fish v. Kobach is now officially Fish v. Schwab.  In this case a judgment was published 2018-06-19, which was officially appealed 2018-07-02.  Then on 2019-01-18 the defendant was replaced by the new Kansas Secretary of State.
 * I've been trying since 2019-01-19 to find guidance on how to handle this.
 * I just added the 2018-07-02 appeal and the 2019-01-18 substitution to the "Timeline" in the article. And I expanded the first few words or the article to read "Fish v. Kobach (officially known since 2019-01-19 as Fish v. Schwab)".
 * The simplest (and probably the preferred) way to handle this is to create a "separate" article entitled "Fish v. Schwab", consisting only of a redirect to this article.
 * However, I'd prefer to have the opinion of an attorney who is also a Wikipedian on this matter before I do that. (I've already tried to contact two other Wikimedians active with articles dealing with US law -- so far without getting an answer to this question.)
 * Thanks,
 * User:7&6=thirteen DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DavidMCEddy It's a garden variety substitution of parties. I would say go with the original name with a direct through the new name.  If there are later appeals, the name will probably change as the date of the filing in the new court.  We can deal with that if and when it happens.  And I would note the substitution in the article.  That's my best guess at the moment.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:7&6=thirteen Done. Thanks.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Typically, at least on appeal, when the name changes they use "aff'd sub nom" or "rev'd sub nom" (under the name of). See e.g.,Coit v. Green.  Hope that helps.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that helps by providing a prior example with some similarities. With your help this current Fish v. Kobach article now seems superior to the Coit v. Green article, because I don't find mention in the latter of how Green v. Connally became Coit v. Green.  I think the latter could use a "History" or "Timeline" section explaining that.
 * If you have any thoughts on how the current Fish v. Kobach article could best be improved, I'd like to know.
 * Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox problem
What happened to Template:Infobox court case? I don't know, but I think this was working properly yesterday and no longer does since a recent change to Template:Infobox court case. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Missed fixing a double redirect. Should be working now. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)