User talk:Legalskeptic/sandbox

RECAP

 * 35 Bar & Grille LLC v. City of San Antonio - 5:13-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex)
 * Christou v. Beatport, LLC - 1:10-cv-02912 (D. Colo.)
 * Swift v. Zynga - 3:09-cv-05443 (N.D. Cal.)
 * Szendrey-Ramos v. First Bancorp - 3:06-cv-01687 (D.P.R.)
 * Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank - 1:04-cv-08968 (S.D.N.Y.)
 * Dean v. Utica Community Schools - 2:03-cv-71367 (E.D. Mich.)
 * Fox v. Franken - 1:03-cv-06162 (S.D.N.Y.)
 * Hornstine v. Township of Moorestown - 03-cv-1953 (D.N.J.)
 * Vivien v. WorldCom - 3:02-cv-01329 (N.D. Cal.)
 * British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy - 7:00-cv-09451 (S.D.N.Y.)
 * Henkle v. Gregory - 3:00-cv-00050 (D. Nev.)
 * Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB - 1:00-cv-10488 (D. Mass.)
 * Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. - 2:99-cv-808C (D. Utah)
 * Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center - 4:98-cv-00161 (N.D. Fla.)
 * Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic - 2:98-cv-07840 (C.D. Cal.)
 * Sierra Club v. Babbitt - 1:97-cv-00691 (S.D. Ala.)

Merge propose
Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. v. Calad into Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila?

The Taxbox

 * User:Legalskeptic/sandbox/Taxbox

Improve infobox

 * Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Special SCOTUS cases

 * Per curiam decisions not on Justia etc.
 * Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond
 * In re Electronic Privacy Information Center (writ of mandamus denial)
 * Decided under consolidated cases
 * Obergefell v. Hodges
 * Bourke v. Beshear
 * DeBoer v. Snyder
 * Tanco v. Haslam

Reference cleanup

 * Rooker–Feldman doctrine
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution (pin cites)
 * SCOTUS
 * Bond v. United States (2011)
 * Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (needs pinpoint cites)
 * Kentucky v. King (needs pinpoint cites)
 * Maryland v. Shatzer
 * McCleskey v. Kemp
 * McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
 * McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
 * Morissette v. United States (just a few ids)
 * Morris v. United States
 * Rapanos v. United States
 * Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
 * Solem v. Bartlett
 * Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine (Bluebook journals)
 * United States v. Payner
 * United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (needs pinpoint cites)
 * FEC v. National Conservative PAC (needs pinpoint cites)
 * United States v. Wheeler (1920)
 * Wallace v. Jaffree
 * really dumb id issue
 * Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (slip opinion id nightmare)
 * COA
 * Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters - needs reorganization of procedural history
 * United States v. Stewart (2003)
 * Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad - cleaned up the basic stuff but footnotes all need new links and template conformity
 * Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
 * District Courts
 * United States v. Graham
 * State cases
 * Smith v. Van Gorkom

Major writing projects

 * Van Orden v. Perry (move some text from lead into a prior history section? needs pinpoint citations)
 * Lemon v. Kurtzman
 * Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (needs expansion, procedural history, pinpoint citations)
 * Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (needs references)
 * Stub expansion
 * McDonnell v. United States
 * Articles that are basically just a whole damn court opinion and need to be trimmed down:
 * Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n
 * NLRB v. Hearst Publications
 * Richardson v. Perales
 * Ybarra v. Illinois
 * Jones v. Harris Associates
 * Georgia, Florida, & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.
 * Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527

Patent cases without USPQ citations

 * Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (needs infobox)
 * Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp. (needs infobox)
 * Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (needs infobox)
 * Ex parte Gutta (needs infobox)
 * Ex parte Lundgren (needs infobox)
 * Immersion v. Sony (needs infobox)
 * In re Sherwood (needs infobox)
 * Microsoft Corp. v. TomTom Inc. (needs infobox)
 * Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. (needs infobox)
 * Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
 * Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. (needs infobox)
 * United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. (needs infobox)
 * The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Restasis patent (needs infobox)

En banc cases
The COA infobox needs some editing to more succinctly reflect cases with both a panel and en banc decision:
 * Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
 * Arar v. Ashcroft
 * Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
 * C. H. v. Oliva
 * Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder
 * Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC
 * Greenberg v. National Geographic
 * Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co.
 * Kincaid v. Gibson
 * LICRA v. Yahoo!
 * Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
 * Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service
 * Peruta v. San Diego County
 * TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.
 * United States v. Councilman
 * United States v. Cotterman
 * United States v. Kincade
 * United States v. Nosal
 * Urofsky v. Gilmore
 * Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
 * Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (really a SCOTUS case)
 * Bernstein v. United States (this one may have excess infoboxes for the District Court decisions too)
 * Nordyke v. King (really complicated)

Potential new articles

 * Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Serv. Corp. (Second Circuit decision cited as the "Brunner test" by bankruptcy courts in determining whether to grant discharges of student loan debt)

Criminal law

 * Conspiracy
 * Commonwealth v. Donoghue

murfoo
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association