Talk:Olmstead v. United States

Why was this page previously at Olmstead v. California? john k 23:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote up this case immediately after writing up Stromberg v. California and somehow left the California bit intact in the case name. Sorry about that. RidG (talk) June 28, 2005 04:53 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was just confused. john k 28 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)

10.300 dollars?!
That's nothing! Was it really $10,300? ^ $10000 in 1928 is closer to $110000 in Jan. 2008.

Plagiarism
A significant portion of the wording on this page is quoted directly from the Olmstead decision, without quotation marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.200 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this "plagiarism", but it's certainly an oversight. I'll mark it up if you can point out exactly what the quotation is. chrylis (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Table and Stone's 'dissent'
Justice Stone's statement says that he concurs in the opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandeis and agrees Justice Butler insofar as he addresses the constitutional question. In the table on the side, it lists this as a separate dissent. In older US Reports, it often says Justice x, with whom Justice y concurs, dissenting. Since Stone's statement is hardly a dissent in itself and he says he 'concurs' with Holmes and Brandeis, should we not just say he joined Holmes and Brandeis?

Should it not thus be: Dissent Holmes, joined by Stone Dissent Brandeis, joined by Stone Dissent Butler, joined by Stone (in part) H.E. Nightingale (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)