Talk:Mertens v. Hewitt Associates

Background section
Someone who understands this case needs to fix the background section. It has broken links, says Scalia made a mistake (would Scalia agree? if not, POV) and is badly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.195.168 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Focuses too much on a law review article rather than the actual case
I completely agree with the previous comment. Right now, this article focuses almost entirely on Langbein's criticism of the Supreme Court's decision (i.e., Scalia's opinion) in Mertens. Langbein's criticism of Merterns is definitely worth including in this article. But it shouldn't be the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:104:1000:10F8:40C4:1378:3CC2 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)