Talk:List of tort cases

What criteria?
A lot of these cases seem to be significant for first applying a particular doctrine of law (the kinds of cases that are in tort casebooks, Putney, Rylands, ect), but others are included just because they're famous? I can't tell. This list should have some NPOV criteria for inclusion, be made more comprehensive with that criteria, and everything else should be cut.

Essentually nothing links here anyway, so is there even a good reason to have this list? Would anyone be opposed to just turning this into a redirect to Tort, salvaging what little useful content there is in various tort articles? Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine to have a list of significant tort cases, but this was insane. I edited it down significantly and deleted a lot of first-year "case summaries". --lquilter 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article? I do not see that it helps the reader or researcher as there is no context and it cuts across jurisdictions. Neither is it an aid to navigation as it does not serve to link related but disparate topics or articles. Nothing links here. I am tempted to recommend for deletion.Cutler (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)