Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 11

Is this incomplete?
Contrast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_403

with

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=vol&vol=403

big uh-oh

160.39.220.88 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, you noticed the last 4 cases on the Findlaw site aren't in the Wikipedia list. They're orders; a dissents from denial of cert; a grant of cert; an order on supplemental proceedings; and another grant of cert.  TJRC (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, could you explain in more detail why it's ok to omit those from our "list of supreme court cases"? AConcernedChicken (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deposition Law
Hi. The Deposition Law page has been telling me to give it an international flavour for months. I tried to point out that deposition law is pretty much a north american activity, but to no avail. Perhaps my latest edits will warrant taking that note off the page?

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.202.218 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Iamashadowyoucannotseeme (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom
I have nominated this article for good article status. Any neutral parties who might wish to review this article's candidacy are blatantly canvassed respectfully solicited. On a separate note, any editor interested in collaborating on this article is most welcome. (User:Ironholds has recently started contributing to the article, doubtless with a view to rectifying my disastrous attempts at improvement. More hands would be a bonus. The article certainly has FA potential, so there might be a featured credit in it for you!) Thank you, AGK   17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a tech fix
Why does this work, but not this? AConcernedChicken (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For faster results, I am going to re-post this at WP:Help Desk. AConcernedChicken (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added  to WikiProject Law. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Murderer and accomplice tried in same venue?
If two people are arrested for murder, one committing the crime, the other an accomplice, would they both be tried in the same venue or separately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.121.80 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: minor query at CA Code
relevant for California lawyers. user:Agradman editing as 128.59.178.82 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should "Targeted Killing" be its own article? Or a sub-section of "Assassination"?
It would be helpful if editors with legal background, who have a moment/interest, might take a look here, and make their thoughts known.

The issue is whether we should: a) continue to have "targeted killing" be a sub-section of "assassination", or b) allow it to have its own article.

The question turns IMHO on whether, as a legal matter, targeted killing is (or is viewed by the RSs as) necessarily a sub-set of assassination. If the answer is yes, then I imagine it is no big deal either way. If the answer is that credible arguments/people might say it is not assassination, then I would think the answer might be different.

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Law on Wikisource
Slaporte and I have started up a WikiProject Law on Wikisource. I'd like to plug it on the WikiProject page, but I don't want to mess with it without consensus. Anyway, please consider joining the project, and next time you're editing an article about a public domain government edict (court case, statute, etc.), consider adding it to Wikisource if it's not already there. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work! bd2412  T 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help on a 1926 case
The question is at Talk:Learned_Hand. Thanks in advance, East of Borschov (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic writ could use some love
Writ of prohibition could use some love from someone with legal knowledge. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament for Alsatia article
I'm having some problem reconciling the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the article about the notorious London enclave of Alsatia with actual legislation.

The "Escape from Prison Act 1697" mentioned there sounds like it is likely the Escape of Debtors, etc. Act 1696. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46875 See also http://alsatia.org.uk/site/2009/09/the-1697-act-against-pretended-privileged-places/. But was it 1696 or 1697? Is there some off-by-one thing going on here about Acts of Parliament enacted in this era, perhaps to do with the difference between the time the Act was laid before Parliament, and the time it was given Royal Assent, or, if later, went into force? ( http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3226256 might help with this, but I don't have a subscription)

And, if so, could the "1723" act have been The Mint in Southwark Act 1722? -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Review request - Jacobsen v. Katzer
What is the general policy on lawsuits as articles? Jacobsen v. Katzer is a recently settled lawsuit that has seen heavy NPOV pushes from both sides. Can we establish: In my opinion, it should be deleted back to a stub at the very least but I would love to get some second/third/fourth opinions on it. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If this even article belongs on wiki
 * 2) How it can be modified to reflect a neutral, encyclopedic viewpoint


 * As an IP lawyer, I have to tell you, this lawsuit is pretty notable. It's one of the first (if not the first) U.S. cases to litigate an open-source license.  The article is a mess, and I'm steering clear of it, but, does it belong on Wikipedia?  Definitely. TJRC (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is tremendously helpful in thinking about how to approach this one. Jminthorne (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete articles about people arrested, but not (yet) convicted?
This AfD may be of interest to some here. An editor has taken the position that we should delete articles that are about people who have been arrested, if they have not (yet) been convicted.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion, California lawyer
Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Please see Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenneth Dickson

Death on the High Seas Act

 * created Death on the High Seas Act stub, see Screwed if by Sea: A 90-year-old maritime law gets BP off the hook for workers killed on the Deepwater rig. Slate. • Ling.Nut 04:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

English law dispute regarding the alleged development of the right to have and use arms
There is an ongoing discussion concerning a dispute at the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution article, and being as that article is part of this Wikiproject it might be helpful if editor(s) were to drop in their and give their opinion. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute will probably be more of interest to those with a background in English legal history rather than American law. The argument is not about American law relating to the second amendment but the law in England, as this it related to the the liberty of a person in England to have arms for self defence, for collective defence, and for other purposes (such as hunting) at various points in time. Arms here refers to any for of defensive or offensive weapon or armour and in particular the state of law at several points in English history. SaltyBoatr wishes defend a telling of history that the right to arms emerged only in the second part of the millennium, beginning with an obligation of a few to bear arms, which then was a right given only to protestants in the English Bill of Rights and then later extended to all (or at a minimum to all militiamen) in the US constitution. I have argued that the right to arms for defence and hunting began as a natural right in the midsts of time, long before the obligation the king put an obligation on a few to defend the interests of the monarchy. My understanding of history is therefore not that the (English) Bill of Rights granted a new right but which reinstated the ancient historic one and granting BACK to protestants the right to have arms once again. This is made clear in the full reading of the Bill which shows that both Catholics and Protestants had had weapons in the past and that Protestants had been disarmed by the late departed (to France) King. My understanding is that the English Bill of Rights is therefore NOT discriminatory against Catholics in terms of having arms in spite of wording which at face value seems to do at one point. Catholics were not barred the right to have arms after the passage of the bill as SaltyBoatr wishes to argue.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Small distinction: Hauskalainen says "My understanding of history is..." where my argument is that reliable sourcing says otherwise. This is a difference between one editor's personal opinion and reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Big distinction. Your myth of the development of a right based on a single source who actually is an author sympathetic to the gun lobby. Her "idea" (of a developing right from zero to full rights) is an extension from certain factual data but the extension is her own and not supported by any primary or secondary sourcing. How can accept her as reliable sourcing if she provides no supporting evidence for her extension from a few facts. The extension wants us to believe the following


 * 1) that the English had no right to use arms (even for hunting let alone personal safety) in the first millennium of the common era or at any time before that. Where is the evidence for this? If that restriction on rights was true, someone, somewhere along the line must have set that restriction in place. When and how did this happen? SaltyBoatR is silent on this point as is his source. Why? I contend that this is because the claim is simply not capable of being substantiated. Legal assistance here would be welcome.
 * 2) that some people had to be granted a right in order to fulfill a legal obligation to keep arms and use them when called upon to do so. The second part is factual but the first is pure conjecture. It is not based on any contemporary or reliable sourcing.
 * 3) that the English Bill of Rights granted a new right to the major religious faction but denied it to others. This is highly questionable as the full text of the document clearly shows that this was about the restoration to Protestants of their ancient right to have arms. A right which the previous King had illegally sought to take away from them. If SaltyBoatr's myth were true, either Catholics still today are discriminated against in the law regarding arms or the law has been changed to repeal the act or it has been ignored deliberately. If SaltyBoatr is right one of these must be true. Which is it and where is the evidence?  The simple answer is that he does not have any sources showing any of this. It is conjecture based on a false reading of the law. It is very telling that the article when it was frozen contained the more complete wording of the Bill as it relates to this clause and this made it clear that this was about restoration of rights and that catholics and protestants both had exercised the right to have arms in the period before Bill of Rights was passed. The powerful lobby that edits this article amazingly seem to have friends in high places in Wikipedia as they have been able to edit this OUT of the article even during its edit freeze! I urge anyone interested in following this up to look at the article as it was at the point of my last edit before the freeze was placed and look at it now. Especially read the fuller extract from the law and not just the one line of it that SaltyBoatr wants us to read.
 * 4) that it is the American Constitution that gives Americans the right to keep arms for their defence. This too is wrong because Americans just like their English cousins, had long had the right to keep arms for their own defence long before the Constitution was written and amended. The right to bear arms for self defence is a natural right which has been tempered progressively by law. The source of that right is not in the English or American constitution but in the common law as tempered by civil and criminal law which recognizes the natural right of the person to self preservation and the right to provide security and sustenance for one's self and one's kith and kin.


 * Mr SaltyBoatr wants us to treat Malcolm as a reliable secondary source for this even though Malcolm herself has no primary sourcing. The claim of a developing right is just her perception and a wrong one at that. It would be helpful to have a better legal basis for the claims that SalyBoatr makes because to me they seem to be the musings of a professor based on little more than conjecture. As are my own. I am quite happy to admit that, as yet, I have not provided any sources for my assertions. Please feel free to help us both out here.


 * Thanks --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Non liquet
There's lots of dispute about the meaning of "non liquet", dating back to 2008. There are suggestions at Talk:Non liquet that this article may actually be totally incorrect. I thought I ought to flag this article up for expert attention. TheGrappler (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in American public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: naming of Irish legislation
There is currently a discussion here on moving the following articles:


 * Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
 * Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
 * Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986 (Ireland) → Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986
 * Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 (Ireland) → Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992
 * Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
 * Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
 * Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) → Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002
 * Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland) → Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008

I'd appreciate input from some more contributors to move the discussion forward. It's not necessary to know anything about Ireland, just the relevant Wikipedia naming conventions. But please have a read of the brief discussion that has happened so far if you plan to jump in.

Iota (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I put up an article for Good Article review? (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha)
I just stumbled upon Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, and I think it's exactly what a Supreme Court case should look like. I think it's deserving of Good Article status. Is there a process I should follow to make that happen? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead is far too short, there are too many tiny sub-sections that ought to be merged together, there are incomplete sentences ("Court of Appeals judgment affirmed."), the legacy section ought to be expanded to discuss the importance of the case and the references are uneven and inconsistently formatted. That's just for starters. It's not close to the standard of Berghuis v. Thompkins, for example.  I'd suggest reading through some of the cases from various jurisdictions listed at GA to get a feel for what a Good Article on caselaw should contain.  When you're ready, follow the instructions at WP:GAN. BencherliteTalk 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, plus the article was assessed as a b-class article, while not meeting the requirements for that level. I re-assessed it as a c-class article, it needs significant work.  GregJackP    Boomer!  11:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help/advice please
EDO MBM Technology v. Smash EDO campaign

This article is fairly new in its current form of a report on a court case. I believe that, as it is a criminal and not a civil case, its name should probably be of the form "R v (list of defendants)". However, as I am not a lawyer, I am asking here if someone could take a look at it and comment regarding the name on the article talk page. Any other changes to bring it more into line with a standard case report would also be welcome. Many thanks.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the word "undertaking" sometimes used as a synonym for surety bond?
I added the word surety bond to the disambiguation page for undertaking, relying on a google search for undertaking bond. But I'm not sure about this decision so please tweak this if it's mistaken. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am wrong:
 * http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/14/2/1/s995.190
 * Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Black's lists surety as one of the definitions of undertaking. Hartboy (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference etween surety and a surety bond.  I am not sure that the two are interchangable. Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

State secrets privilege
Sigh.

OK, look, I'm going to bite my tongue and not say anything like "lawyers are evil", etc. etc. (Everyone is hereby instructed not to read the foregoing sentence, unless they feel like it.)

The article titled state secrets privilege was until minutes ago titled State Secrets Privilege, with capital initial letters. And as I said within the edit where I changed the title, it was not consistently capitalized within the article. Even today, some people begin Wikipedia articles with all capital initial letters in the title merely because it's within the article's title. Obviously that is forbidden by WP:MOS.

Once upon a time I was summoned for jury duty. I booklet handed out to everyone who was so summoned informed people of things that the Powers That Be thought they should know about jury service. The booklet had lots of common nouns starting with Capital Letters. One of those was the term Jury Room. The room in which the jury meets is the Jury Room. It was actually spelled with a capital J and a capital R, even though "jury" was (brace yourselves!!) spelled with a lower-case initial j when writing about the body of 12 persons! I will refrain from (further?) speculation about whether this could be a sort of Freudian slip, or any guesses about what lawyers think of jurors. (In a Wizard of Id strip, a peasant asked the only lawyer who regularly appeared whether it's true that lawyers want stupid people on juries. Instead of answering the question, the lawyer said "Intelligence is not a prerequisite to being on a jury."  Great.)

It does seem as if lawyers are among those who use capital letters to much. WP:MOS prescribes fairly sparing use of capitals. (People in Computer Science and in Management are Two Other Such Groups.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

 * I have requested a peer review Peer_review/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence/archive1, and would appreciate any and all help.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
I would like to see more opinions expressed at the discussion at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which has relatively few editorial voices involved in determining an issue with broad reach. This has some relation to this project, as many of the buildings affected are courthouses or other structures involved in lawmaking, and it deals with the effects of Congressional naming legislation. I believe that RFC's are traditionally kept open for a month, so opinions may be still posted for a few weeks. Cheers bd2412  T 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce/sub-projct
Im not sure if there already is one, but if there isn't then there should be some special field for Sharia law to get 1. get experts to elucidate the relevant info (both of Sunni and Shia variants), and 2. it is a big enough scope with plenty of articles.Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming issue at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
A naming issue has come up at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. A number of editors have moved the article to "Arizona SB 1070", although it's an enacted law, it's not a state bill, and the name is an apparently unique exception from the way that other legislation is named on Wikipedia. This is being discussed at Talk:Arizona SB 1070 - input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
This is a N.D. Calif. District court case that has recently been appealed to the 9th Circuit However, the importance and resulting attention from the trial court case itself and the resulting decision easily merits its own article separate from higher legs of appeal.

Besides, updating the article to reflect the 9th Circuit and possibly the SCOTUS would result in confusion between trial court information and appellate court information. Simply said, organization would become a mess.

I don't see any precedent for this. (I have never seen a district court case get so much attention as of yet) So what should be done? --haha169 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on what you are asking. Without getting into the merits of the case, it is still on-going and until the various appellate courts rule, the decision is not final (in contrast to what some of the links in the article indicate).  It is likely at some point that the article would have to be split into separate articles, but I don't see that as feasible at this time, until there is at least briefs filed in the 9th Circuit.  It may just need to morph into a an article on the appellate case as time goes on.  You may want to look at McDonald v. Chicago as an example.  It started as a federal District Court case article, morphed into an article about being argued at the 7th Circuit, and finally became a SCOTUS article.  It's on-going, let it play out.  There is no need to make a decision on this at the present time, especially considering the likelihood of it being several years before a final decision is rendered.   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but morphing an article like this seems difficult to me. The McDonald case (if I recall correctly) didn't even have an article until after the SCOTUS decision was made. That is how most case articles are done. But Perry, three days after the District Court opinion already has 70 KB worth of text. Morphing that into a 9th circuit and eventually SCOTUS would be difficult. What I'm asking is, is there any precedent of having separate articles for different legs of appeals? --haha169 (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Short refs for cite court
Hi. I'm developing an article on a subject that has been featured in numerous court cases. There are several cases with the same or similar plaintiffs, defendants, and years. I'd like to use a short referencing "author-date-page" scheme such as  &lt;ref name="rbn-navy1">U.S. Court of Appeals (District of Columbia), 1987a, p. 1.&lt;/ref> . I merely assume that the court is the author of record, as opposed to the judge writing the opinion (i.e.  &lt;ref name="rbn-navy1">Ginsburg, 1987a, p. 1.&lt;/ref> ). Going with the title of the case, I think, would lead to TL;DR, i.e.:  &lt;ref name="rbn-navy1">Rainbow Navigation, Inc., et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., 1987a, p. 1.&lt;/ref>  Any opinions on the proper way to do this? Thanks. H aus Talk 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several cases entitled Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy. I have a little difficulty identifying which one you are talking about.


 * There is


 * Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 911 F.2d 797 (D.C.Cir. 1990)
 * Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 783 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
 * Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 699 F.Supp. 339 (D.D.C. 1988)
 * Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 620 F.Supp. 534 (D.D.C. 1985)
 * Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 686 F.Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1988)


 * The 1990 opinion was written by Ginsburg. Luckily, your case name is not Untied States v. Smith.  With the legal citation Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 911 F.2d 797 (D.C.Cir. 1990).  I know exactly how to find this case.  This case can be found in volume 911 of the 2nd Edition of the Federal Reporter on page 797.  I know that the case was decided in 1990 by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the case name from this citation.  By typing 911 F.2d 797 into google scholar or a commercial legal research service such as Lexis or Westlaw, I can find this particular case.  I appologize for our confusing system of citation.  If you have the opinion, and have the abbreviation of the case citation e.g. 911 F.2d 797, at a minimum, you can provide this and a lawyer or law student would be able to find it.  To aid the casual reader, you may provide a link to the opinion from google scholar or other site where the opinion is published. Gx872op (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I could have been clearer, and shouldn't have used a semi-fictional example. Below is an actual snippet from the article. I use the cite court template to make the full citation in the references section, but would ideally like to make some sort of unambiguous-yet-abbreviated reference to it in the spirit of CITESHORT.

  ... During 1985, Iceland raised the matter with the United States Department of State at least six times,&lt;ref>U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington D.C., 1986.&lt;/ref> ...

Preemptive war
Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Globe International
Editors are warring about which web site is the official one for the Miss Globe International article. Both sites have the look of legitimacy to a non-lawyer, such as myself. At Talk:Miss Globe International, I have started a discussion to find out which site, if not both, has a valid claim to the name. Links to the front pages, and to (what I think are) the relevant legal pages from each sight are included. Will someone here who knows something about such things please have a looksee? By the way, they are evidently two seperate pageants taking place in two different locations, on different dates. Both appear to be the sole, legal claim-holder to the name. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please share your two cents at this AfD: Articles_for_deletion/Carter_v._Commissioner
Thanks. - Andrew Gradman editing as JD Caselaw (talk) due to Wikibreak Enforcer. (Yeah, lame.) 07:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed as Keep. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of religions and the UN
Please let AzureFury know which lede is best at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations. Skip down to the sad face if you are in a hurry. Thank you. PYRRHON  talk   15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate
Menominee Tribe v. United States is a Featured Article candidate. Any interested editors may participate, and can review the Featured article criteria prior to reviewing the article. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation problem
I'm translating Texas v. Johnson to the spanish wikipedia, but I have troubles with the expression "five-justice majority" ¿What it means?. Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That the decision was passed with the smallest possible majority (five of the nine judges in the Supreme Court). Steinberger (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Defamation, truth is an absolute defense?
It appears that defamation is defined as something false in dictionaries and legal handbooks. But several writers at the defamation page have pointed out that it not always is the case and that it might be a US centric definition without correspondence internationally. (See Truth as a defense, #definition, #Truth, again and #False). I am one of those who spotted this inconsistency over jurisdictions (I have found a string of countries where unjustified publications of true statements are defamatory, including the Philippines, France, UK and China) and have tried to get it erased as a general definition in the lead (although it have the disclaimer "usually"), but have been reverted and urged to find consensus. Others have said that defamation is defined as false, but that other laws may prohibit publishing of truths (with reference to US legal handbooks). I for one, think I found support for the notion that this separation of defamation and "public disclosure of private facts"-laws are US specific and that both are dealt with under defamation laws in some, if not most, jurisdictions (where privacy laws instead reefers to laws used in combination with the rules set out in the freedom of information legislation and data protection acts). So, do we have some expert here who can bring clarity on this issue? Steinberger (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on this AfD Articles_for_deletion/Texas_Disposal_Systems_Landfill_v._Waste_Management_Holding
Hi, Possibly interesting law-related AfD here which has not yet attracted much attention from other editors, and is dominated by one or two contributors (largely myself and the man who appears to be the main subject of the article.) I think it's deserving of a decent debate and some input from experienced Wikipedians, and this seemed like a potential place to look for that, so I hope it's appropriate for me to post this here. Hope to see some of you add your thoughts to the dicussion. --Korruski (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request - Grievance
The article on Grievance was nominated for deletion. The stub is in a sorry state, and has been extensively vandalized in the past. Every hand in the project needs to fix this and find sources. Please help! Bearian (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542
There is a discussion at the talk page of Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 as to why the two Acts have the dates 1535 and 1542, but are often given the alternative titles of the "Acts of Union" of 1536 and 1543 - different dates. Both descriptions and sets of dates are verifiably in use - what we do not know is why. Can anyone here help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New portal: Portal:Law of England and Wales
Let me introduce to you all the latest portal within the project's scope, concentrating on the law of England and Wales. It particularly needs more suggestions for pictures and quotations, so please give me some ideas there! I've not finished the "Did You Know" section, but will do that gradually. Any comments gratefully received. BencherliteTalk 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal question at Suffix (name)
Please have a look at Talk:Suffix (name). We all know that, in the US, some people who use a suffix with their name, i.e. John Doe III, will change to John Doe Jr. after John Doe [no suffix] dies. In other families it is customary to keep the suffix throughout life, even when all the ancestors have died. The question is, is the suffix part of the legal name, or it is just a description. If one wants to change it, does one need to go through a name change process, or does one just change it whenever one feels like it.

This has important practical applications. If for example, you look at discussion boards for notaries public such as http://www.notaryrotary.com/default.asp (Notary Talk tab) or http://123notary.com/forum/ and search, you will find a great deal of confusion in this area. I suspect you would find similar confusion among other low-level officials who receive limited continuing education from their superiors. The consequences for the public will be that these minor officials will demand court ordered name changes before recognizing the new suffix, when, arguably, no such order is necessary. Or they will demand ID containing the suffix when no such requirement exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional law firms
List of fictional law firms has been nominated for deletion. I am trying to work this into a more informative article on law firms as depicted in fiction, but am relying heavily on a few sources. Any help in bringing this article to a state where it will be kept would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "versus" when specifying a case
Please could an editor with knowledge of legal terms take a look at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom and offer an opinion on whether the term "v" (versus) is correct? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. To save anyone clicking through, the question is whether the form "Petitioner v Respondent" is correct when the petitioner and the respondent want the same outcome, and the "real" opponents are other respondents (in this case, the AG and Lord Chancellor).  The answer IMHO is still "yes", although fuller case titles such as "P v R and others", or "P v R and the AG (LC intervening)" are also found and are not wrong. Views in support / opposition to this explanation welcome there! BencherliteTalk 20:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's.. interesting. I'd go for "yes"; situations where A and B are both arguing for the same outcome and simply want a legal comment on the matter are Re Blotto & Blotto, but that doesn't apply here. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

jurist Bio needed pls
See Talk:David_Cameron_(disambiguation). First Chief Justice of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island (well, actually the only one, as Begbie was Chief Justice in the Mainland Colony). The cite linked there can be paraphrased; there's a Dictionary of Canadian Biography template-boilerplate for doing so.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Jacobsen v. Katzer to project
FYI, I added Jacobsen v. Katzer to this project because it seemed to fit. Feel free to assess or remove as appropriate. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)