Talk:List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Rehnquist Court through the Roberts Court

Untitled
Notes for January 25, 2007. I've been trying lately to make the list as robust as possible. I didn't think this was supposed to be a comprehensive list, so I'm not linking to every case decided by the Court. But I have been drawing on my own knowledge of important cases to fill in the gaps on the list, particularly in volumes of U.S. Reports that had previously been skipped. The down side to this is that there are a lot of red links on the page now. I'm not expressly volunteering to create the corresponding articles; I leave it to the group to do that. ---Axios023 05:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Notes for January 31, 2007. That's not to say I won't tackle any of the new red links. Also, I've updated the list of reported cases to account for the fact that volume 545 of U.S. Reports is out in preprints and to take into account the cases decided thus far in October Term 2006.---Axios023 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes for February 1, 2007. I've updated the list of cases yet to be decided to include the most recent cert. grants. ---Axios023 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
Material on this page originated in List of United States Supreme Court cases, and was divided from that article when it became too large. The edit history of said material can be found in the edit history of that page. BD2412 T 14:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Split Roberts Court - current session
What do others think about splitting the current Court term into its own separate article? It could hold greater interest among the general readership, since it would be an interesting place to survey recent decisions, and it would be easier to track. Castellanet 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Burlington & White
05-259 (06/22/06) Burlington N. & S.F.R. CO. v. White Mention was added in the BNSF article, but I'm not well-enough versed in the topic to create a dedicated, full-length article on the case. If someone does want to create the seperate article, please remove the relevant section in the BNSF article and add a link to it and a cursory mention in the introduction there. Thanks! MrZaius talk  20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Romer v. Evans
The description needs to be fixed
 * Looks OK to me. ---Axios023 05:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cohen vs. Cowles
Could someone who knows the case add Cohen vs. Cowles Media? Michael Hardy 04:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been added, but not by me. ---Axios023 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Volume 545
By changing the case citation to the pre-print version, all of the links were broken because FindLaw doesn't currently have volume 545 of the U.S. Reports in its database. I've reverted your edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but there were other edits besides adding the 545 U.S. cites. I'll bring those back, and make sure that all the links are functional.  ---Axios023 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Thanks. --MZMcBride 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Decided but not yet reported" section
Hey -- I noticed that the most recent cases listed on the chart couldn't fit neatly into the five-year grouping that the other cases do because some of them aren't decided and reported yet. Can someone split the "decided but not yet reported" group into two bits, one for the 2005 cases and one for the 2006 & 2007 cases? We'll have to change it back once the 2005 cases are searchable on findlaw.com, but in the meantime it still looks funny. ---Axios023 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Morse v. Frederick
See this link. I've reverted in order to show correct order of the parties in the Supreme Court, where the party that lost in the court below is listed first. ---Axios023 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cert. pending table
I modified the table listing select cases the Court has agreed to decide to include the dates on which the Court agreed to do so, and then sorted it by date on which the Court granted cert. ---Axios023 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An issue of concern
I've noticed that the List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Rehnquist Court through the Roberts Court, List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Hughes Court through the Burger Court, and List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Jay Court through the Taft Court articles are becoming somewhat similar in purpose to the Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases, the difference between them being that there are short case summaries on the former pages. I think all of the articles are useful in their own way but I've noticed overlap and I'm wondering if something needs to be done, and if so, what?

One thought I've had is to divide the lists of cases related to specific courts down to each specific Chief Justice. Although this could result in some lists being very short and others being very long, the lists could also incorporate in all of the cases heard, including all of the red links. This would make the purpose of the lists according to the justices more distinguishable from the complete list by volume, and would make more logical sense than having some red link cases on the list and not others. --Cdogsimmons 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

KSR
Where is the KSR case? other patent cases are described, but not KSR, which is the most important one. 65.216.235.42 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Split
I propose splitting into List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Rehnquist Court and List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Roberts Court. -- Y not? 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's still a few Rehnquist decisions that have not been published and in addition Roberts has only been on the court 2 years at this point. I'll support this next July but not now. Jon 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support the split. I'm not sure I understand the rationale to oppose.  The opinions are pretty clear regarding which court is making the ruling. ·  jersyko   talk  21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support the split per Jersyko. I too don't understand the opposition. Cases decided under Rehnquist but not reported naturally should go to the Rehnquist list. Roberts took no part in their decision, and regardless of their reporting in the US Reports, they came down as slip opinions so it's officially law. Wl219 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support in part and Oppose in part. It seems from current events that the Roberts court is signifying a shift in the tone and politics of the court. I wouldn't mind delaying the split until next July as Jon proposes above as it would give us a better idea as to the need to split them. Grymwulf 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)