Talk:Arizona v. Fulminante

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Supreme Court cases C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Arizona C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Law & Order (season 2)#ep23|Confession]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Someone with more legal expertise may want to look at how I cited case opinions because I'm not sure I got all of them correct. This case produced a very decided court. Just look how the opinions are cited from Findlaw:

WHITE, J., delivered an opinion, Parts I, II, and IV of which are for the Court, and filed a dissenting opinion in Part III. MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined Parts I, II, III, and IV of that opinion; SCALIA, J., joined Parts I and II; and KENNEDY, J., joined Parts I and IV. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered an opinion, Part II of which is for the Court, and filed a dissenting opinion in Parts I and III., post, p. 302. O'CONNOR, J., joined Parts I, II, and III of that opinion; KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined Parts I and II; and SCALIA, J., joined Parts II and III. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 313.

I did the best I could to clarify in the listing on wikipedia, but if someone and make it even easier to understand that would be great. -- Johnny06man 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny06man: It was a pretty decent start. I've added to the article, but the main thing I changed with the various opinions is that I called part III of White's opinion a concurrence. I know I'm disagreeing with Findlaw, but part III agrees with the outcome the rest of the court reaches, and only disagrees on reasoning. If it were a stand-alone opinion, everyone would call it a concurrence in the result. Tikwriter (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I was cleaning up vandalism on various articles by 205.155.216.40 and noted he had changed the dates on this article. I reverted his edits, assuming they were vandalism, but someone more knowedgeable than me needs to double check them. --A. B. 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]