Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

This project was taken over by Skyler1534 because the old project did not appear to be active any longer. The old project page is archived and can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases/old.

Citation style (Originally from List Talk)

The standard citation style seems to be VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (or similarly for pre-United States Reports reports of decisions) but here it is generally written VVV U.S. PPP YYYY. Would it be worth updating the entire page to use the standard citations? (For that matter, it would be a bit of an exercise to dig up proper citations for all of the cases here, but if they are truly important, then it should be easy to find them in on-line references.) 18.24.0.120 06:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please feel free to change any you notice to the normal citation style, as well as adding any citations you notice are missing. Jamesday 15:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I know this is belated to the conversation, but I am currently updating every case (on the case's page) on the list to reflect a uniform citation of: Name v. Name, VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY). This is how citations read in Supreme Court dockets with the exception of the underlining of the case code. I will eventually update every case (on the list page) with the citations.

My plan would be to make the list format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY)- followed by the appropriate subject the case concerns. I won't be updating the list page until I have finished properly citing every case page, so if anyone has any comments on my proposed format, please let me know. Skyler 17:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know yet whether I think underlining the reporter volume and page enhances readability, but it is not the proper format in legal writing, whether academic or in actual legal documents. I'm not sure what the general wikipedia policy on this is, but I don't think formal accuracy should ever be sacrificed, even for readability. There are different citation formats within different state jurisdictions—some put the year before the reporter, etc.—but none that I am aware of underline the reporter, and federal courts, most states, and the Blue Book use ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (though the case name may be underlined rather than italicized). This is what we should use. Postdlf 13:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I might sacrifice some formal accuracy (if by that is meant something like Blue Book conformity) for readability in an extreme case, but this isn't such a case. There's no reason to depart from the standard format. I agree with Postdlf's format except that I might not always wikilink the year -- I don't believe that wikilinking every mention of a year accomplishes anything. Whether to link a particular year depends on the context in the article. JamesMLane 14:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I just do it every now and then because others seem to like it, but I personally don't have much use for all the year links either. Postdlf 14:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with JamesMLane and Postdlf here. I don't really see that the underlining does anything to enhance readability (in fact, I'd argue that underlining almost always detracts from readability). Linking years in a list is largely pointless, though the year should be linked in articles (at least the first occurence). [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 15:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I am currently in the middle of a long project (check my contributions) to overhaul every case article on the list for uniformity. I am adding "The Bench" section to show who was on the bench and which way they voted to every article once I am done formatting the case citations on each case article and then on this list. I have been using my format proposed above with the underlined portion in response to the fact that contributors were adding case citations to the list and putting them in bold, which I thought made it less readable. I have gone through roughly half the case articles on the list and reformatted, but I would be happy to change them to format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) if I could get a consensus from the Wikipedians who commonly contribute to the supreme court case articles. I still think the year should be wikilinked as it is the common practice for many Wikipedians and it does not hurt anything. I will continue conversation on my projects (through the different waves) on this page and any feedback would be very much appreciated. I am trying to create uniformity, not ruffle feathers. Skyler 15:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

The most obvious way to create uniformity would be to follow the practice that's most common in the profession (and will therefore be most familiar to any lawyers contributing to the articles) and which is also the format used by the U.S. Supreme Court (and will therefore be most familiar to nonlawyers reading those decisions, which are the ones most likely to be written up or mentioned). We might vary from that standard format if there were a reason specific to Wikipedia to do so, but I haven't seen any such reason. JamesMLane 02:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've already gone through all the citations I had formatted that way and changed them to common format, but thanks for the feedback. Skyler 14:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject

FYI, there is already an existing WikiProject for this exact purpose: Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases. It seems like it never really got off the ground, though. I'd suggest replacing the old WikiProject with this one; perhaps there will be some tidbits you can salvage from the original. I would definitely recommend moving this project to WikiProjects; since they're much more visible. Users looking for a project to join usually visit Wikipedia:WikiProject. Best of luck on the project, • Benc • 07:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had already spoken to Siroxo regarding the other page. I'm still in the process of deciding what to do about it, since the user who began it does not appear to be around anymore and I don't see much in the old project that isn't covered in mine. I expect to end up archiving the old project page and replacing it with mine, I just have to actually get around to doing it and I'm trying to make sure I cover my bases and do not ruffle any feathers when I do so. Thanks again. Skyler 14:03, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases- formatting

A discussion has started at Talk:List of United States Supreme Court cases regarding the formatting of the list. I would appreciate it if contributors to this project could weigh in so we could have a consensus on the best way for the list to read. Skyler 20:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

US Code formating

On a more general note, is there any project to do the same for parts of the US Code? For example, when editing Search and seizure, I came across these two pages [1] and [2]. Something like that would be a useful addition to wikipedia... we really don't need to link off site to provide that info. But then do we create an article about every US Code? Or just link off site to the cornell site for exmaple, [3]? Perhaps this project can also include formatting rules for US Codes? Wuzzeb 05:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formatting shouldn't be a problem. The standard citation format is the one used on the site you found, 18 U.S.C. § 1344. A textual reference should write out the word "section" and can refer to the title by name instead of by number, e.g. "Under section 1344 of the Criminal Code, bank fraud is..." (assuming the context makes it clear that United States federal law is involved, otherwise one would say "the U.S. Criminal Code").

As for articles, most sections don't deserve their own articles. My to-do list has long included an article on one section that does deserve an article, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but one reason I haven't gotten to it is that I don't know how anyone would ever find it. Either "1983 action" or "Section 1983 action" would be a reasonable title, but that's only because this is the exceptional case, where the section number is in practice the most common way of referring to a particular kind of lawsuit. JamesMLane 23:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've always felt that articles regarding pieces of the US Code should be written with the title being the Act of Congress that added the section(s) of the Code in question, since the Code can only be changed through legislation. For example, 42 U.S.C. 1983 was added by Public Law 96-170 as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. It might be best dealt with in an article relating to amendments to the Civil Rights Act. I believe there have been a number of them.

That's just my point of view, though, and it falls outside of the scope of this project. Skyler 17:49, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

USSCCAIP replacing old WikiProject

In an effort to attract more attention, this project has been moved to replace an old WikiProject. The new page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases. Skyler 15:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas as example of good article?

This article was, in fact, a good article, but do you really think it should be listed on this project page as such? It does not follow the given outline and is, in fact, missing a few of the important parts of the outline as defined by the project. If we are going to show an example of a good article in relation to the project, I think it should be one that follows the outline. After all, one of the main goals of the project was/is uniformity.
If the article were edited to coincide with the desired outline of the project or the outline of the project were edited to coincide with the outline on Lawrence, I would have no problem. But as it is, I think if we are going to have an example of a good article for new (or old) project contributors to look to for guidance, it should model the goals of the project.
Unless strong reasoning is given objecting to my previous statements, I plan to remove Lawrence v. Texas and look for an article which more clearly represents the project goals. Skyler 22:43, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:02, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week idea

First of all, I think this is a terrific idea and my thanks to Neutrality for taking the initiative and adding it to the project page. I have but two slight problems with it.

1. I think the best way to decide which article is next is to propose numerous and vote for one. I support Miranda v. Arizona as the first collaboration and Neutrality supports both of the proposed, so I am going to remove the vote for the other article and just leave the vote for Miranda. Neutrality, if you have a problem with this, please feel free to change it back.
2. Since we don't have a large amount of Wikipedians interested in the project yet, I don't think "of the week" would be the best thing for now because it may take more than a week for the 3-4 active contributors to get any given article ready for "featured" status.

I propose that we start a project and end it when everyone thinks it is ready to be nominated. I also propose that the article should conform to the outline as defined by the project. If anyone has a problem with any part of the outline, now would be a good time for us to get a consensus and fix it.

As of now, our active contributors (as I see it) are myself, Jacob1207, Neutrality and possibly Mateo SA (he has been making some small contribs and I would like to get him on board). Hopefully we will be getting more Wikipedians interested, but until we do, we four are the ones who would be collaborating.

I propose that nominations for the next article be made by midnight on the Sunday following the closure of a collaboration and votes (for the one article each user thinks should be next)be registered by the following Wednesday. The article that receives the most votes will become the next Project Collaboration Article (PCA).

I have created a project subpage to be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases/PCA for the purpose of the collaborations. The talk page can be used for us to communicate in regard to the article at hand (since some talk regarding the project would just confuse people if it were on the article talk page).

My greatest thanks again to Neutrality for his enthusiasm for the Project and for proposing this marvelous idea, which I hope produces some good results from we committed. Maybe after we get one or two featured, we will even get more contributors interested. Everyone is welcome to comment on the idea and we will adjust as necessary. I would definitely like feedback.

Skyler 16:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Case citation templates

I have created case citation templates that link to the full text of the decision. They are used as follows:

• General case citation: {{ussc|volume|page|year}}. For example, for Roe v. Wade, one would type: {{ussc|410|113|1973}}, which produces: 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
• Specific citation: {{ussc-cite|volume|page|cite page|year}}. For example: {{ussc-cite|410|113|118|1973}}, which produces: Template:Ussc-cite

— [[User:Flamurai|flamurai^TM]] 03:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

I have cleaned the article up, and met NPOV concerns. Now, the article seems to me totally neutral, and very comprehensive and well-written. It includes a complete history of the case and it tracks the controversy as it has developed from the 1970s. Therefore, I have nominated it for featured status. See: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roe_v._Wade. Support appreciated. At the very least, I think it can be taken off "intensive care." Noah Peters 07:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

Two proposals and a comment

1. As an alternative to the "bench" section, etc., I have created a info box template similar to that found in animal species articles. This will allow more details to be crammed in one location without interrupting the prose of the article. Let me know what you think of User:Postdlf/Template:Court cases—I have tried one application so far at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I'm prepared to do many more.
2. It would be nice to have some kind of chronological categorization. Two possibilities, either or both of which may be used.
   1. Categorize cases and all applicable legal topics in a broader "Law by year" organization, similar to that found in film and book categories—i.e., Category:Law in 1995. Cases would be categorized by the year of decision, statutes by the year of enactment...and that's probably about it; I can't think of any other legal topic that is inherently identifiable with a single year.
   2. Categorize cases by CJ, i.e. Category:The Rehnquist Court, Category:The Burger Court. Justices themselves could also be easily categorized by this, because few lasted beyond two CJs (though I think Douglas was on the Court through four). I like this one—it is easy, objective, and in tune with how legal scholars divide up periods of the Court's history.

One other issue that I don't yet have a solution for is dealing with facts about the parties or events in a case that are known but were not part of the record decided upon. Adding this to the article on the court decision would be confusing, because a reader needs to know what facts the court used for its decision. However, this information could often be fascinating, to provide more information on the parties, or to illustrate how the picture the justices received was merely (and typically) a sliver of the full reality. Any suggestions?

Postdlf 23:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

coming late to this party, and ill-prepared I fear. However, I wanted to say as a user the mentioned box is vastly more accessable than the current format the guidelines on this page suggest. I've seen talk on other pages hushing suggestions of lists of articles by court, however that seems like an excellent addition (though it can in no way replace the numerous other listings that are needed to make the hundreds of years of Supreme Court case law accessable). Anywho, I'm new around here (the whole "helping with wiki" idea, not just this project)... so, I'll be learning the ropes and trying my hand. Darker Dreams 5 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Guidelines and article outline

I'm new to this topic, having added articles for this week's decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Tenet v. Doe. As time permits, I'll likely develop an article for United States v. Booker, which invalidates the minimum sentencing guidelines and has has major implications for the criminal justice system.

Anyway, I just modified the Roper v. Simmons article to delineate the dissent from the case decision. Now, I find this WikiProject and your Guidelines and article outline and see that you keep the case and the dissent together under one headline.

However, I suggest for the article outline, that there be a separate heading for the dissent in the following situations:

• Only in those closely decided (5-4) decisions.
• For more recently decided cases and possibly older cases, when it merits.

I think that helps to ensure the articles are presented in Npov.

As for Tenet v. Doe, the decision was unanimous and therefore, a heading/section for the dissent (there was none) is obviously inappropriate. What do you think? - Kmf164 15:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hey Kmf. Great job on the Roper and Tenet articles.

I am not sure if I support only having a separate heading for dissent in 5-4 decisions. There is a lot of cases with very few (i.e., 1 or 2) dissenting votes that have since become important precedents and, in some cases, have been accepted in place of the majority opinion. See, for example, Harlan's dissents in cases like Maxwell, Twining, and Hurtado, or Brandeis' dissent in Gilbert. Personally, when I write a SCOTUS article, I usually try to include the details of the dissenting opinions, even if the case was decided 8-1 or 7-2 - it helps the reader see the points of disagreements between the justices instead of being bludgeoned by the majority opinion alone. Having a dissent section in almost every case is, in my view, absolutely vital to maintaining Npov.

As far as Tenet, the dissent section is of course moot. RidG (talk) 22:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no concrete rule, as to when to include a section for the dissent. Definitely a separate heading for 5-4 cases, but also a separate heading for dissent for any case that merits it (that's up to the author's judgment and the editors). In the cases you mention, go for it. The dissent is indeed important in maintaining Npov. - Kmf164 01:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PCA Status

I've just wandered over to the "Project Collaboration Article" page linked from the SCOTUS page to see what the status is. In looking at the history of the page, it seems that it hasn't been edited since early December, 2004. Is the project dead in the water, or temporarily on hiatus? RidG (talk) 22:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

From recent edits to the List of United States Supreme Court cases, Skyler1534 and Mateo_SA are still active with the topic. - Kmf164 01:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Court case infobox

Please check out User:Postdlf/court case infobox—this has been applied to dozens of case articles, and renders the prior organization listed on this project page at least in part obsolete. I would like the project to be modified to incorporate this infobox, and unnecessary headers (such as "the bench") dropped. If there are no objections, I will proceed to adapt the project guidelines accordingly. Postdlf 17:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My shock and pleasure

Greetings,

Just wanted to say that I am very happy and, frankly, shocked to see that this project is still alive.

I have been away from Wikipedia for many months due to illness and severe lack of time/energy and assumed that this project would die while I was gone, so I was very pleased to see that people still work on this project and that it is strong even without its founding member.

I hope to be back in a limited capacity and working on the project and the articles it includes. I will clean up the project page as soon as I have the necessary energy. If anyone has any ideas on how to clean it up, I would be very happy to hear them on here or on my personal talk page.

Thank you to everyone who continues to work on SCOTUS articles and make this aspect of the Wikipedia great.

Skyler1534 23:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all

Glad to see this getting off the ground. Sorry I ran away - I should have checked the watchlist more often.

I'd be happy to help out. I really like Postdlf's template, btw. --PrinceValium 05:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Nix v. Hedden

Can someone help us fix up this rather unusual supreme court case? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I love it. This is probably one of the best bits of SCOTUS trivia that I've ever come across. I've briefly skimmed the article, and it looks pretty decent - what did you have in mind as far as fixing it up? I could probably expand the opinion details, I think. RidG (talk) 20:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sound off, one, two

Just wanted to get a quick count of how many people involved with the project are still around and active. Anyone? RidG (talk) 20:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I make supreme court articles now and again and I support this project (although I might not have added my name to the list). By the way: I think we should need on the box. Why isn't it a template? This link is Broken 03:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I love the box, but I have no idea how to make a template out of it. I do think that it's something that should be present in every single SCOTUS case, and if anyone has the know-how of how to do it, please help us out. RidG (talk) June 28, 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Coming back I just realized that "By the way: I think we should need on the box" makes no sense whatsoever. I'd love to help but I don't undestand them box things. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Resign or retire?

The list of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States conflicts with many justices' pages.

Retire on the list, but resign on their own pages:

• Charles Evans Hughes
• Samuel Nelson
• Oliver Ellsworth

Resign on the list, but retire on their own pages:

• Owen Josephus Roberts
• William Henry Moody

Failed to say anything on their own pages:

• William R. Day
• Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
• Joseph McKenna
• George Shiras, Jr.
• Henry Billings Brown
• Stephen Johnson Field
• Alfred Moore
• John Rutledge (unclear)
• Thomas Johnson (governor) (about John Rutledge's "resign")

These problems must be fixed. -- Toytoy

What's the difference between "resign" and "retire"? The new york times calls O'Connor's move yesterday a retirement and a resignation all in the same article. Is this just a style issue? Leonardo 2 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

• Senior status: Part-time job, part-time pay. You're too sick to be a full-time justice.
• Retire: Paid for the rest of your life. You don't need to find another job, say flipping burgers at a McDonald's.
• Resign. Either you leave the job over a scandal or you move on to find another job (e.g. U.N. ambassador). No pay.

That's why it is important to know whether who resigned or retired. -- Toytoy July 2, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Your distinction seems to depend on assumptions about the federal pension rules. As a completely uninformed guess, I'll say that a Justice who voluntarily leaves the Court has a pension set by his/her years of federal government service and earnings during that time, possibly with a factor for age, and it doesn't matter whether he/she finds another nonfederal job. If a Justice moved to a different federal job, such as U.N. Ambassador, it might be a different story, if all federal jobs are lumped together for purposes of calculating a pension (and the pension doesn't begin until you leave federal service). Even in that case, though, the Justice has retired from the Court, which is what's meant. JamesMLane 2 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

List of OT 2004 Supreme Court decisions

I'm experimenting with creating an infobox that can serve as a portal and list for cases that were decided in the previous term of the Supreme Court. The list would be categorized by subject. See User:Saucy_Intruder/sandbox/List_of_OT_2004_Cases. If anyone has any suggestions for prettying up the design of the box, and/or is willing to help build the table please let me know! Thanks! --Saucy Intruder 5 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)

this box seems to be doing the same thing as one made by User:Postdlf:Postdlf. That box can be seen in action at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld among other places, and the general template is User:Postdlf/court case infobox. If you're trying to do something different ignore me, but having seen this infobox on different sites it seems like a phenominal way to list the same things you're going for and is more visually appealing.Darker Dreams 5 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Nope, this page would be a list of all cases decided during the term. The titles would link out to the article page for each case. Postdlf's template is an infobox that accompanies an article for a single case. --Saucy Intruder 5 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

• I am not quite clear on this, either. Are you proposing having basically a single big box that would list the synopsis of every single case during a specific term? RidG (talk) July 5, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
  • While I agree that sorting the cases dozens of different ways would make it more accessable (by term, by justices/chief justice involved, by subject, etc) I don't necessarrilly see a value to more than the citation and a sentence of discription on any of those pages (though a sentance for each would illuminate the differences for those who don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of case history). With a good infobox on every article's page people can get the entire idea of a case at a glance (reading the actual article if more information is desired). in short, unless there's a secondary purpose to this, it seems like its simply going to replicate the work done by another infobox and clutter up the directory pages. It seems like a better expendature of effort would be putting the infoboxes on the various case pages (most don't have them) and making sure that the ones that do are complete (I've added a couple that have some, but not all, the info for various reasons)... or, finding various ways that the cases might be investigated and sorting them. Darker Dreams 6 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Infobox

68.17.156.140 (talk · contribs) has created {{United States Court Case}}, which is an infobox relating to U.S. cases and therefore is directly relevant to this WikiProject. It has already been used on multiple articles (including Marbury v. Madison) and would be an appropriate infobox for adoption by this project as the official infobox template. --Wikiacc (talk) 16:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• They're awesome. I've put them in all the case articles I've started, but they need filling in for much info. -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of notable United States Courts of Appeals cases

For anyone who is interested, I've created a List of notable United States Courts of Appeals cases (which is fairly barren, but there are plenty that should be there). -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested contents

The suggested contents for the introduction don't really comply with standard Wikipedia practice or our objectives to inform and educate. Standard practice has the first paragraph or two containing the essence of the whole article, while the objective to inform and educate requires an early description of the case intended for lay people relatively uninformed about the legal system. Fortunately, there is a solution to hand, for SCOTUS itself provides its syllabus. For these reasons, I suggest that the introduction should use several paragraphs to cover the syllabus material in a way suitable for a lay audience. Then the article body can more freely cover the decision in the sort of depth needed by those who really need to understand all of the details. This way we can at least partially resolve the inevitable tension involved in a work which has to cover both lay levels of knowledge and more detailed professional summaries. Jamesday 03:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gideon v. Wainwright

I'd appreciate some help responding to a POV warrior on the Gideon v. Wainwright page. (And maybe some help revising the article to make it more NPOV.) — Mateo SA | talk 18:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The user (Supremacyclaus) seems to have given up on GvW, but has since done some edits (as an anon) to Marbury v. Madison. GvW still needs some work, though. — Mateo SA | talk 01:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Court Citation styleguide

Because it's not clear on the project page, this is a straw poll on the preferred method of citations in court cases. All examples but one are already implemented somewhere (and linked to in the example). Vote for and against as many or few options as you want, giving reasons at will. Feel free to add more options I didn't think about. Some articles include linking to the year while some don't, but there was an opinion somewhere around here that suggested avoiding this as it clutters it up too much--if you like linking to the year, say so in your vote. And I'd be happy to change the format to that voted on on as many pages as I can. Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Note - generally in the actual citations, the date is wikilinked as well - I'm changing those below to reflect that. -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Link only to "Court citation" (leave case in external links at bottom)

Example

Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

For

• It makes the most sense to me for the link behind the numbers to explain what the numbers mean. It doesn't make sense for an off-site link to be anywhere other than a footnote or in the separate external links section. Nor does it make sense that if someone is reading an article about the case that they'd immediately want to see the text of the case itself. Articles about public domain books don't begin with a off-site link to Project Gutenberg. Postdlf 07:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• This would be my third choice, but definitely supportable. I agree with Postdlf's analysis. -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Link only to case on Findlaw, using {{ussc}}

Example

Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

For

Makes it easier for users to get to the text of the cases. When they can see the facts of the case for themselves right away, then they're less likely to edit an important case out of an article, especially when it's being used to illustrate a controversial point (see the citation to the Lyons case in Los Angeles Police Department for an example). --Coolcaesar 07:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Against

• The first link in the article should not be one that would take the reader out of Wikipedia entirely. Besides, I think only lawyers would expect that a click on this popularly unfamiliar set of number would take them to what is probably a very dense piece of legal prose. -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with BD, plus for reasons given under above vote for first option. Postdlf 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to both using court citation twice

Example (Canadian, but idea is similar)

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, 1985 SCC 15.

Against

• It would be confusing to give the citation twice, IMO DES ^(talk) 16:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with DES - too many numbers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to both preceding Findlaw with "Court Citation:"

Example

Nix v. Hedden Court citation: 149 U.S. 304 (1893).

For

This seems like a reasonavle approach. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is the clearest to me, because it explains what the "nonsense" numbers and letters are (I have no legal background). -- Avocado 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• In retrospect, I like this one the best - even though it's hardly bluebook form (or even ALWD for that matter), it is very wikipedic. -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Against

• I dislike this one precisely because it's neither Bluebook nor ALWD style. Then every single time a lawyer discovers Wikipedia, the first thing they will try to do is fix the citations until someone directs them to the Manual of Style. We need to take unintended consequences into consideration! --Coolcaesar 02:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But you've been trained to think that way because you are a lawyer (which is a great thing, don't get me wrong), but really, how many lawyers will be using Wikipedia as a source for case info? They'll go to Westlaw and Lexis and the like. I think Wikipedia (even these cases) will far more likely be used by lay people, or at least by law students who don't know nuthin' yet about citation styles. -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• It looks clumsy; we might as well have a separate sentence saying "The court citation for Smith v. Johnson is..." I agree with Coolcaesar's comments, not because lawyers will be relying on Wikipedia, but because they will always be editing it. Postdlf 06:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to Court Citation and footnote to external link

Example (fake case, used as example)

Smith v. Johnson 1 U.S. 1 (1776)^[4].

<article>

^ 1 U.S. 1 (1776)

For

• GregAsche (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• This also seems like a reasonable approach. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• This would be my second choice, behind the one just above it. -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• My second choice. Postdlf 06:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to Court Citation and link to Findlaw in SCOTUS box

Example

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). (see SCOTUS box on top right of Ex parte Young)

Other citation style

Example

<insert example here>

Straw poll: SCOTUS box

I've also noticed two info boxes being used in SCOTUS cases, the first much more prevalent than the second (although you can't tell because the template itself isn't used in the article, just the formatting, and so there's no link to the template in "what links here", my personal experience has shown the first one is used much more often). They are essentially the same, but the template of the first seems less complete than the second (less is coded in that template). The short-comings of either can probably be easily fixed and because they're templates they can easily be switched, so really all that matters is the layout/visual appearance and ubiquity. Which do you like better? And if you wish, how could we improve either. Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:SCOTUSCase

1. Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC). Blue and white is much more pretty than grey, although I still use the classic skin, so that may be why.
2. -- BDAbramson ^talk 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I've already put this one in over 50 cases! -- BDAbramson ^talk 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Postdlf 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Though maybe I'm just biased because it's derived from the original infobox that I had created. But I think the style is simply bolder and more clear than the other one, and the boxes within boxes look of the other one just looks amateurish. NOTE: The other template version does not have more information than this one; there are more add-on templates that fill in the rest of the information for this version because the variation in the opinions section from case to case requires flexibility. Which is why I originally created it without templates to begin with (see User:Postdlf/court case infobox), but whaddya gonna do... The kids, they like their templates. Postdlf 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

See Lochner v. New York for a good example of how this version's modularity works well. See Marbury v. Madison for a good example of how the other version's lack of modularity leads to awkwardness. You're stuck with a line for "dissent" even though none was written, and it's stuck in the last position, even though the line about the justices that did not participate in the case should instead go last. And if there is more than one dissent? And if the lead opinion was a plurality rather than a majority? The other template simply fails to encompass those possibilities. Postdlf 07:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:United States Supreme Court Case

1. I like this one because of the visual style, and because it has a court membership and opinions box, but since the other one is in much wider use, I would be willing to change my vote if someone adds court membership and opinion sections to the first template (whoa runon sentence). -GregAsche (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
   • See, e.g. Allen v. Wright (a personal favorite). -- BDAbramson ^talk 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
2. This one is actually in wider use than the other one; it previously had the visual appearance of the other one, which may mislead some. It has also been in existence for a longer length of time. It is also better designed (in terms of the color scheme.) --Wikiacc (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
3. It has more features. Although I think it should give the user more leeway on the "opinion" and "dissent" sections because concurances make it more complicated (which this template can't express well). This link is Broken 23:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I am no longer so confident this template is superior, I'll change my vote to neutral. Broken S 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Help on Civil Rights Cases

Can someone tell me if this is under the correct article title? Doesn't look like it is. - 203.134.166.99 06:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)