Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark decision

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Landmark decision
This is nothing but a bunch of inaccurate statements, a dicdef, and a POV list of cases by one country's highest court; this article has no hope of redemption. The precedential and binding effects it attributes only to "landmark cases" are true of ALL appellate court cases. EVERY court decision in common law countries is supposed to guide how future decisions come out (see stare decisis) and EVERY higher court decision is binding upon lower courts. Once you remove that, all you have is an arbitrary selection of only U.S. Supreme Court decisions (see List of United States Supreme Court cases for the much more complete list) and a one-sentence dictionary definition of a popular usage. Delete as inherently POV. I've also listed Category:Landmark cases for deletion for the same reasons. Postdlf 01:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) [see modified vote below]


 * Delete, arbitrary. Lacrimosus 01:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, inaccurate. Binadot 02:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. innacurate206.222.192.151 03:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. inherently POV. DaveTheRed 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and US-centric with no hope of improvement. Thryduulf 07:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) see changed vote below
 * Keep It's 100% POV and US-centric with no hope of improvement for sure. However, the existence of landmark cases is true. There are cases that redefined the law of the U.S. and they are called "landmark cases" or "landmark decisions" by legal professionals as well. A Google search of ("landmark decision" law) results in 88,300 hits. It's no different from cause célèbre. These cases are so-called textbook cases. There are forgotten cases, undisputed cases and cases only known by a few experts. Not all cases are equal. -- Toytoy 13:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Landmark decision in Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed.: A decision of the Supreme Court that significantly changes existing law. See e.g., Brown decision; Miranda rule. -- Toytoy 14:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Landmark decision in Black's Law Dictionary 7th ed.: "A judicial decision that significantly changes existing law."  It then gives examples of Brown and Palsgraf...you kids all know Palsgraf, right?  You have a wiktionary candidate, that's all.  Postdlf 14:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think any torts student knows Palsgraf. It's a weird, funny and "explosive" case. -- Toytoy 14:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we haven't. It's a straightforward combination of landmark and case with their ordinary dictionary meanings. Uncle G 18:19, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with redirect to famous law cases or something similar. Radiant_* 14:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Landmark Keep. A landmark case is something more than a mere precedent-setter - it is a case that sets forth a new direction in the law, or which explains the law in such a clear, concise, and convincing manner that it becomes the case cited in support of that principle.  There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that rely on a particular previous "landmark case", so in that sense, Toytoy is absolutely correct to analogize this to a cause célèbre.  Think of it as a case célèbre. --BD2412 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A student of the U.S. laws must study some "landmark decisions" to know anything about the law. A Supreme Court justice does not say "Hey mom, were're setting up a landmark today!" But the fact is, most case books select their cases from an unofficial pool of the so-called "landmark cases". For example: when you talk about personal jurisdiction, you let your students study Pennoyer v. Neff. That's it! A case book may also cite some other less important cases. But they usually only cite a few paragraphs at most. You only let your students study landmark cases in full. -- Toytoy 07:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * A "landmark decision" is like a cult movie. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cult movie. Plan 9 From Outer Space is another one. Jurassic Park is not a cult movie. This is not official. This is also highly POV and U.S.-centric. But anyone who knows anything about movies can tell you which movie is a cult movie. This analogy is also applicable to landmark decisions. -- Toytoy 07:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The point about those films, certainly Rocky Horror, is that it is not just a landmark case for the United States, as it is one in the UK as well and I think I'm right in saying other places as well. All the cases cited in this article and this VfD have been landmark cases in the USA, which affect USA case law only. If this article is to stand it must either be split into sections or sub-artciles for each country (potentially one for every common law jurisdiction), or renamed to reflect its limited scope. Thryduulf 08:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am a Chinese living in Taiwan. Our legal system is nearly 100% civil law. However, when we talk about due process, you know what ... we talk about the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and some cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254, and possibly, many other related German and Japanese legal principles. Law scholars in Beijing and Shanghai do the same thing all the time. I think it is a good idea that we rename this article to fit its U.S.-centric nature and only keep a dozen really undisputed cases that are truly ground-breaking and influential such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison and Miranda v. Arizona. Then we can merge unused cases into the List of United States Supreme Court cases -- Toytoy 08:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (Modify) While it is US centric, it is a useful article on showing the growth of America in the courts, and how the courts can be used to create major changes in society. Added examples from history, like in Great Britian, Canada, or other countries, may be useful in showing that 'landmark cases' is not a US-only thing.  This could help create an NPOV situation. Kit_Foxtrot 03:17, Mar 23, 2005 (EST)
 * To talk about stare decisis, a "landmark decision" changes the law and is binding to later cases. That's why it is influential and different from other cases. -- Toytoy 08:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep after following major reorganization. As it stands this is highly US-centric, and arguably POV. I would expand the definition at the top, rewording it be be a general discussion and add sections for other common law jurisdictions (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia, etc), with each giving a sentence or two of text relating to the specific meaning in relation to that country (e.g. in the US they're Supreme Court decisions, in the UK they're House of Lords decisions). Each section would also have a link to a list of landmark cases in that country, e.g. List of landmark cases in the United States (or United States legal precedents or United States landmark cases). I would move the list portion of this article there. This would produce something like:
 * Landmark cases
 * A landmark case is blah.
 * United States
 * In the United States, landmark cases are decisions of the Supreme Court.
 * main article: List of landmark cases in the United States
 * United Kingdom
 * In the United Kingdom, landmark cases are decisions of the House of Lords or The High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
 * main article: List of landmark cases in the United Kingdom


 * Small lists could be contained in the main article with longer ones split off as is standard practice. Thryduulf 08:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Modified article. Try this.  If this article survives deletion, the list of U.S. court cases should be moved to List of United States Supreme Court cases, of course, as otherwise the article is completely unbalanced.  This article should not contain lists of court cases, but should discuss the concept of "landmark cases" and leave the lists of actual cases to the (surprisingly many) "list of cases of X" articles and categories. Weak keep. Uncle G 20:16, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the sort of change I had in mind. Thank you. Thryduulf 21:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment to the above discussion:
 * 1) In the U.S., there are plenty of landmark cases that are not from the Supreme Court, just as there are many (probably most) U.S. Supreme Court cases that are not landmark cases.
 * 2) There are plenty of landmark cases that are no longer precedent - Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson spring to mind.  They were massively important for their time, and are still studied today so students can understand the later rejection of the decisions (Scott by a Constitutional Amendment, Plessy by a later Court).
 * 3) As Toytoy noted before, there are some fairly universal landmark cases in common law countries - I'm sure torts students all around the world contrast Palsgraf, decided in New York, with the Wagon Mound cases out of Australia, and every contracts course covers the British case of Hadley v. Baxendale.
 * I'd say there should be a category for universal landmark cases, and one for those specific to each country that has a common law system, and perhaps one for the EU, which has a common court that has come down with some remarkable things. --BD2412 00:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think landmark cases need not to be "right" it only needs to change the law's direction. Roe v. Wade is not 100% right. At least pro-lifers hate it. Anyway, that case changed lots of things. Plessy v, Ferguson is absolutely important even until today. But that case changed nearly nothing. The "separate but equal" doctrine did not change the law, it upheld the fact. If I were a former slave-owner at that time, I'll be happy. That case is important but hardly a landmark. If the U.S. Supreme Court says the Earth is flat today, that decision is surely a landmark. A landmark decision does not need to be "right". It only needs to make a huge difference in the law. Dumb v. Dumber: 1+1=3; Moe v. Curly v. Larry: George W. Bush is a lizard alien; Monty v. Python: Spam! Spam! Spam! These decisions will be landmark decisions. God, let me take over Rehnquist's job! -- Toytoy 03:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Another example:


 * Eldred v. Ashcroft: The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is constitutional. -> This is not ground-breaking. I don't think anyone will call it a landmark decision. But how about ...
 * RIAA v. MPAA: Copyright shall last forever.
 * Copycat v. Constitution: Copyright is illegal.


 * Both cases change the law. The former: forever v. limited period of time; the latter: not at all v. limited protection. I think the former can hardly be a landmark case because today's copyright is already nearly forever. -- Toytoy 04:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * After the rewrites, I'm on the verge of changing my mind, but please change it to "landmark decision" instead of "landmark case"&mdash;it's the court decision within a case that changes the law&mdash;"case" just refers to the legal conflict as a whole. Plus the Black's definition is for a "landmark decision".  Postdlf 06:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A landmark decision must be an outstanding decision. A boring case (no sex, no violence, no busty husband-killing defendants) may lead to a jaw-dropping decision and vice versa. I am not sure, but the original 17th century French causes célèbres could have been some juicy and spicy tabloid-style cases. I also prefer "landmark decision". -- Toytoy 09:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as rewritten, provided that significant restraint is used in deciding which cases to list. Postdlf 20:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A side note: "case law"
IMHO, the term "case law" is fatally inprecise. We are talking about issues and decisions (IRAC sans R & A). You may cite a case for your own case. But you're not citing the whole case. You only cite the issue that's relevant to your case (actually, a decision that's most friendly to you). Anyway I am not going to change this term. -- Toytoy 09:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that discussions of what cases are landmarks and what are not, and the minutiae of the article wording, better belong on Talk:Landmark decision. Here we are discussing whether the article should be deleted &mdash; in other words whether landmark decisions exist and, as a class, are encyclopedia-worthy.  I think that the nominator may well have changed your mind at this point. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * It is the proper term, however. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.  "caselaw.  The collection of reported cases that form the body of law within a given jurisdiction.  &mdash;Also written case law; case-law.  &mdash;Also termed decisional law; adjudicative law; jurisprudence; organic law."  "Decisional law" in Black's is just a redirect to "caselaw" (and a term I have never heard nor seen in use).  It may not be a sensibly crafted term, but it is the right term.  Sometimes we're just stuck with the language we have.  Postdlf 17:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As expanded, it looks keepworthy.DS 14:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)#
 * Keep all landmark cases and this article. Kappa 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.