Talk:Vosburg v. Putney

Factually Incorrect and Misleading

 * Orton wrote for the majority in 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. (the first appeal);


 * VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant.
 * SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
 * 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 276
 * October 20, 1890, Argued; November 5, 1890, Decided
 * APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.
 * OPINION: ORTON, J.


 * Lyon wrote for the majority in 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. (the second appeal);


 * VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant.
 * SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
 * 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 234
 * October 26, 1891, Argued; November 17, 1891, Decided
 * OPINION: LYON, J.


 * defendant (Δ) was George Putney not Hiram Putney;
 * plaintiff (Π) was Andrew Vosburg not Jonathan Vosburg Wermsker (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Father was Seth Vosburg not Andrew Vosburg Wermsker (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * legally material facts are munged in with irrelevant facts (parents, jobs, wealth);
 * legally material facts are munged ad hoc from both appellate actions;
 * the rule of law is entirely obfuscated;
 * procedural history and facts are intermingled;
 * issue and holding are munged, and thus incorrect (mixing actions);
 * most importantly, there are ZERO citations/references.

Due to the sheer volume of changes necessary to hack this into something accurate (or something that won't shame a 1L under professorial cross), I submit this as justification to reboot this topic with a ground-up rewrite (which I am working on now) Wermsker (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reboot
I've completed the rewrite. Mixed audience targeting, I tried to follow these guiding principles: I was less interested in appealing to the "fully informed" audience that can just as easily read the full case.
 * 1) accurate
 * 2) informative
 * 3) concise
 * 4) student friendly

I didn't reference page numbers because many editions exist for some of the casebooks. I err'd on the side of credibly verifiable.

While I go a bit deeper than any single casebook, there are some professors that have turned this one case into a full semester launch pad. So I didn't even try to mount a full analysis with all the potential forks.

If, upon reading this rewrite, you become violently ill or emotionally unstable, take the appropriate measures to remedy your discomfort. &#9775; wermsker  (ATC) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif Nominated for Deletion

 * The issue is moot.  Wermsker (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)