Talk:Diane Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States courts and judges (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Bot-created subpage[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Diane Pamela Wood was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a page move[edit]

Judging from media reports, Ms Wood seems to be known most widely as "Diane Wood" rather than "Diane Pamela Wood". Given that there are no other Wikipedia articles for people called "Diane Wood" and there is no disambiguation issue, I propose the page be moved to Diane Wood. Any thoughts? — Lincolnite (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from this article, all sources I've ever seen, and all lawyers whom I've ever heard refer to her, call her "Diane Wood", not "Diane Pamela Wood". Wikipedia naming conventions require that the most easily recognized name be used for an article. "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Since such sources overwhelmingly call her "Diane Wood", that is the proper name for the article, not the current "Diane Pamela Wood". Krakatoa (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

It seems to me like the references I pulled out last week were more than we really needed, but now they're back in. Can anyone offer some insight on why we'd need 15 sources saying that Wood was a likely candidate? — Bdb484 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When it becomes difficult to read or edit an article due to reference overload, you're right, we need to use a bit of discretion in terms of references. I just did some reference wrangling in that particular section. The remaining ones fully and clearly cover the brief mentions, and I think provide more than adequate direction for further research. For everything else, there's Google News.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

restoring her middle name to the lead[edit]

Per MOS:BIO#Names: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version."

I'd restored it from a vandal replacing Pamela with rofl. While I was restoring it, I figured I'd source it.

The above talk page section refers to the article title, not to mention in the lead. Her full name is encyclopedic and important. I would like to restore this, or you may. If you disagree, please state why. TransUtopian (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Moot as self-reverted. Thanks. TransUtopian (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

We've been here before, as can be seen from the discussion in May 2009. Once again, there is a horrendous reference bloat. User:Winter5210 is convinced that we need 11 references in the lead and 7 in the body to establish that she has been widely considered one of the most likely people for Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court. Not only is that far more references than necessary, there is no reason for the lead to be the primary location for for these references. There is not real controversy here, so the need for references in the lead is exceedingly small. The lead section, per guidelines, is supposed to be a summary of the article. As such, support for its propositions should primarily come from the body text. Finally, many of the references Winter5210 is so keen to protect in the lead do not support the proposition they follow.

In addition to the references about the Supreme Court, Winter5210 also seems to believe that references regarding purely biographical information, her name and place of birth, and about a commentator's description of her must be in the lead, and not in the body. This is such an obvious of policy that I hope he will simply relent rather than prolonging that particular issue. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In the last few minutes, not only have Winter5210 and an IP editor inexplicably re-added the refs that do not support the post-Stevens retirement speculation, they have added more to the lead, bringing the total to 13, and removed all but one from the generic statement about speculation in the body text. This is truly getting bizarre. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. The lead usually doesn't have any footnotes at all, but merely summarizes what's in the main article text, which is where the references go. It's not in any doubt that Wood's on the list for the Stevens slot, in fact she seems to be in the top three short list. Three or four references for this, from major outlets like the NYT and CNN and so forth, should be more than sufficient. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this position. Too many references detracts from the article. Moreover, and speculation on her potential nomination to the Court must be tempered, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If we can't get a response from the user/editor, and he/she continues to edit war, I'd support taking this to RFC.DCmacnut<> 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I've stopped moving around the references that you want to move. Move them all to the body if you like. I was only curious why you insist on truncating the quotation, which has been the subject of our disagreement since last night. (Winter5210 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

The statement, including the quotation, belongs in the body text. Whether it should be in anyway a part of the summary is a matter of debate. I tend to agree with you that her being considered an intellectual counterweight is significant enough to be summarized in the lead. However, it should be summarized, not duplicated. It is enough that the quote and reference are in the body text. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I stand corrected (on pretty much all points). (Winter5210 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
We all have to be new sometime. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The references are shaping up. Why doesn't someone nominate this and the John Paul Stevens article at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a veteran of many GAC efforts, but I think stability matters, and the article would destabilize is she is nominated. If I'm right about that, I counsel delay. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
There's too much that's unsourced, especially in the first three sections, for this to succeed at GAN. And the sources that are used are law school bio's and the like, which aren't always the best. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping someone might add a few refs to get this through. How about the Stevens article? Somebody here could probably shepherd that one through.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The Stevens article was better than I expected when I looked at it a couple of days ago, but it would need some work for GA. There have been some good newspaper articles lately about his style of work and personal demeanor that should be incorporated as well. Last time I checked, the only SCOTUS justices at GA are Stephen Breyer (which got it several years ago and probably would need work to meet a GAR) and Sonia Sotomayor (which is recent and still in good shape). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy rulings[edit]

The entries in this section should probably each have a secondary source showing that someone besides a Wikipedia editor thought these were noteworthy.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The section should be called something different. These opinions are representative works of a public figure that are part of the public record. Anyone is free to read and summarize them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter5210 (talkcontribs)
Sure, anyone can do anything on their own websites. But here on Wikipedia we rely on reliable, secondary sources for writing our articles. See WP:PSTS.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Representative rulings[edit]

The representative rulings are short summaries of published decisions of a federal court, which are in the public record and subject to review by any user. The decisions are the integral part of this public figure's work. They do not run afoul of neutral point of view rules. (Winter5210 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Users contesting whether ruling summaries defy neutral point of view rules should discuss the issue here. The cases are short and User:Zz414 has not explained why some summaries are deleted and some are not. The first time the user vandalized the page the user deleted fewer summaries that then second time. Please discuss here. (Winter5210 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter5210 (talkcontribs)

According to whom are these rulings representative? Who selected them?   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The users who have updated this page over the last two years have selected, just as you are free to select decisions. The Seventh Circuit's website publishes them all. If you have a better suggestion for a name, perhaps suggest it. (Winter5210 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
If the selection was done by users then it is a case of "original research", which is prohibited by WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this section represents original research. These are cases published by the courts, which are certainly reliable references. Perhaps you are worried about calling them "representative." I thought that "noteworthy" was a better title from the start. (See above.) I recognize many of these cases from media reports, so people could add references to those sources to establish cases as noteworthy. (Opalkt (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
The selection of these cases, and the exclusion of others, is original research. If they are noteworthy then they will have been noted. All of these should have a secondary source to show that someone, besides a Wikipedia editor, thought that they are more notable than the average case.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's possible for a case to be notable while the rulings in it are non-notable, and vice versa. What's important in this article is what the subject did or wrote.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that they are public record, subject to review, integral to her work, and are (relatively) neutral. I do not agree, however, that there should be so many opinions dominating the article. The summaries of her opinions are longer than the entire remainder of the article. (And while each individual summary is relatively short, combined they are quite long.) Additionally, it is questionable that so many (fairly favorably-summarized) opinions should suddenly flood her profile the moment she has been rumored to be a potential Supreme Court nominee. While I agree that a number of noteworthy opinions are certain relevant and important, they so overwhelm and dominate the article that they run afoul of undue weight, in which an article must deal appropriately with "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement." The fact that a series of (reasonably short) summaries of her work does not mean that there should be so many opinions, much less so many opinions several sentences long. Zz414 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think the opinions are framed too favorably, feel free to edit the offending parts of the summaries accordingly. Likewise if you think that it is too long. This is a tiny representation of the opinions written. Just as the scholarship summaries are a small portion of those written. (Winter5210 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
Winter5210 is right -- these case summaries are neutral and provide more information to people interested in learning about a judge in the news. Her job is to write opinions. More information (as long as it is accurate, which these have been) is better. (Opalkt (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

I added some of the case descriptions, as Winter5210 explained, to add to the discussion of Wood's rulings in light of the public debate regarding potential nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy. Since she has issued so many opinions, I thought it would help to add more cases from diverse areas of law so that people could form their own opinions about her views. My efforts were motivated to get the profile in line with Justice Sotomayor's, which includes many more case descriptions even though she had a shorter career on the bench.(Bobbyt02 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

We should consider whether all of these are significant enough for inclusion. Many of them are clearly noteworthy, and others would be easy to back up with news sources (such as Bloch). However, the basis of inclusion for some is not obvious to me. Specifically, these are as follows:
  • Bayo
  • Germano (it may be cited in legal treatises, but does that matter?)
  • Thompson
  • Jiang
  • St. John's United Church of Christ
  • Jackson
  • Walker
  • Brown
  • Fornalik
  • Toys "R" Us, Inc.
  • Tyus
I'm not saying none of these are notable, but something more is needed for them. Simply changing the section to "Representative rulings" is a cop-out. There is no evidence that these are representative; indeed, a representative sample would have very few noteworthy rulings, and would be weighed down by a huge number of completely boring cases. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rrius that some should be deleted. Bayo was an important recent immigration case issued by the entire court, I'm not sure whether that makes it notable by itself. From what I've read, Toys "R" Us was an important antitrust case. I posted some of these case descriptions after reading about them. I am open to suggestions about what should be removed. (Winter5210 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

There are literally hundreds, and probably thousands of published legal decisions by each federal court of appeals judge. It can't be the proper place for wiki editors to self-select a few of these thousands of decisions for inclusion, can it? Seems to be pretty straight forward original research. Furthermore, as of today, the number of decision summaries greatly outweighs the remaining content of the article, making this very disproportionate. I would like to know what criteria were used, and where there is some verifiable source for why each case is included. Clearly some cases which garner substantial attention (and hence would be verifiable with sources discussing the significance) can be proper. But I would ask again, why were all these cases suddenly deemed substantial and needed for the bio page? Veritasjohn (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the original set of ten cases was added back in May 2009.[1] Those entries were about 580 words long in all.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm now spending a bit more time on this issue. As best I can tell, there is no other United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit bio (I reviewed all active judges) with anything like a list of "noteworthy" or "representative" decisions. Only three judges appear to have mention of more than one or two decisions. The only other judges with something like a list of decisions and summaries of the decisions are Frank H. Easterbrook and Richard Posner, and for Posner his "judicial career" section simply describes a few cases (less than 150 words). For Easterbrook, the Chief Judge, there is a list w/out explanation of 8 decisions, totaling less than 50 words. I have not reviewed all other BLP for federal Court of Appeals Judges, but I believe this Seventh Circuit comparison is enough to show that the current summaries of decisions is unjustified, and is undue weight. And yes, I do understand maybe all pages need to be improved, but at this point I fail to see why such a substantial and unverified selection of opinions belongs on this bio alone. Veritasjohn (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with removing this section, but it definitely needs to be whittled down using some objective criteria. As there doesn't seem to be any formal guidance on this from WP, a good starting point might be to say we want five or six opinions she personally authored that were noteworthy enough to merit widespread coverage in mainstream -- i.e. non-legal -- publications. Thoughts? — — Bdb484 (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted cases[edit]

Here are some news articles that mention her opinions or dissents from 2009 to 1996:

  • Wood's sister says she sees the kind of empathy Obama says he wants, pointing to a 2004 opinion she wrote in which the court found in favor of a Chinese native fighting extradition to her home country because she feared she would be sterilized under that country's one-child policy. The woman had fled China in 1999 to avoid being forced to have an abortion. Wood has drawn criticism from some as a strong supporter of abortion rights, with many pointing to a later-reversed opinion in which she found that Planned Parenthood could use racketeering-conspiracy law to sue protesters. She may be best known locally for writing the opinion that upheld the corruption conviction of former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, and for her dissenting opinion in what is known as "the mezuzah case." Wood wrote that a condo owner was discriminated against when her building's association removed a mezuzah, a scroll-like container with biblical passages that some Jews nail to their doorposts.
    • Appeals court judge in Chicago believed to be finalist for Supreme Court seat. John McCormick, Jeff Coen. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: May 23, 2009.
  • Perhaps because it originated in a conflict between the Book of Deuteronomy and the rules of the Shoreline Towers condominium, a federal appeals court will give a lawsuit over a mezuzah a rare full-court hearing, Wednesday. [..] Justice Diane Wood dissented: "In my view, the Blochs are raising a straightforward claim of discrimination based on their Jewish religion and ethnicity." [..]Easterbrook and Wood will be joined by others on the 15-judge federal appeals court Wednesday in the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. An en banc review, as it is called, is seldom granted -- usually a signal the justices sense the makings of a landmark decision.
    • Religious freedom at court's door: Dispute over right to hang mezuzah gets rare full hearing Ron Grossman. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: May 12, 2009.
  • Diane Wood was appointed to the 7th Circuit by Bill Clinton in 1995. She is reputed to hold her own with Judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, two big-brain conservatives. She is being targeted for a 2001 decision that allowed the use of the RICO anti-racketeering law to keep anti-abortion protesters away from abortion clinics (until overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003). She also ruled that a convicted sex offender could not be barred from city parks after admitting he had impure thoughts about children but hadn't done anything.
    • BLIND JUSTICE?; Obama's 'empathy' criteria betrays the notion that justice is blind, regardless of whether a litigant is black, white, male, female, gay, straight, rich or poor. ALAN W BOCK, SENIOR EDITORIAL WRITER FOR THE REGISTER. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: May 10, 2009.
  • A federal appeals court has overturned the death penalty for a man who raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy while out on parole for child molesting, a crime that led to the creation of the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Jurors might have spared Christopher Stevens if his attorneys had presented adequate evidence of his mental illness, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago found. [..] "In this case, we find a reasonable probability ... that the result would have been different if the jury had heard mainstream expert psychological testimony," Judge Diane Wood wrote in the 2-1 ruling that found Stevens' defense inadequate.
    • Death penalty overturned in case that inspired sex offender registry; [Indiana Edition] Charles Wilson Associated Press. Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind.: Jun 28, 2007. pg. 2.C
  • A federal appellate court has found that the Illinois Gaming Board had the right to revoke the license of the Emerald Casino. The ruling came down from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week. Judge Diane Wood wrote in the 23-page opinion that Rosemont may be "disappointed that it built an expensive parking garage," but that doesn't mean the gaming board can't oversee gaming. The appellate court took no position on whether the state should or should not have revoked Emerald's license. But the court did reject the claims of Rosemont and Emerald that the state had no right to revoke it.
    • Northwest suburbs in 60 seconds ]; [Cook Edition] Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Apr 10, 2007. pg. 3
  • In a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt. [..] The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which will explain the judges' reasoning, was not immediately available. During oral arguments Thursday, one of the members the three- judge panel said the charges against Thompson were unfounded. "I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood told prosecutors. "I'm not sure what your actual theory in this case is." The court heard arguments in the case Thursday morning and then ordered a trial judge to free Thompson from a federal prison in Illinois, which she entered in November.
    • GEORGIA THOMPSON ACQUITTED, SET FREE ; HER CONVICTION IN TRAVEL AGENCY CASE IS OVERTURNED;[ALL Edition] JASON STEIN Wisconsin State Journal. Madison, Wis.: Apr 6, 2007. pg. A.1
  • A federal appeals court blasted Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and an aide on Friday, calling arguments they made in a case "entirely out of line." [..] The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said a legal brief signed by Lautenschlager and Assistant Attorney General Richard Moriarty defending the state in an employee lawsuit was at times bizarre and disrespectful. "We trust the state of Wisconsin will adopt a more appropriate tone in future briefs filed with this court," Judge Diane Wood wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Richard Posner and Terence Evans. Wood used a footnote in the 15-page opinion to chastise a portion of the state's argument in the case. [..] Wood said it was inappropriate for Lautenschlager and Moriarty to argue in the brief, filed last December, that members of the U.S. Supreme Court made "remarkably intransigent statements" and "polarizing declarations" when they split on a case involving the 11th Amendment. The tone was disrespectful of the justices, Wood wrote.
    • FEDERAL APPEALS COURT BLASTS ARGUMENTS BY AG, AIDE ; LAUTENSCHLAGER CLEARED IN ETHICS CASE; [ALL Edition] Staff, wire services. Madison Capital Times. Madison, Wis.: Aug 26, 2006. pg. B.1
  • Qwest CEO Dick Notebaert is in legal trouble over bullish statements he made while chief executive of Tellabs Inc., an Illinois maker of telecommunications equipment. A federal appellate panel ruled Wednesday that portions of a shareholder lawsuit alleging that Tellabs and Notebaert deceived investors could proceed. A lower court had dismissed the civil lawsuit, which covered the period between Dec. 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood wrote in a 28- page decision that some statements attributed to Notebaert about Tellabs' business at the time fell within acceptable corporate "puffery" or optimism. But she found other statements to be "more troublesome, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the company's upbeat attitude." Those included Notebaert saying in March 2001 that a key product was continuing to "maintain its growth rate" while sales actually were waning by an estimated $400 million. "While it is conceivable that Notebaert had yet to see the (internal) reports suggesting his company was in trouble, the plaintiffs have provided enough for a reasonable person to infer that Notebaert knew that his statements were false," Wood wrote. [..] Wood also focused on statements by Notebaert in early 2001 that a new product was being shipped to meet strong demand. Plaintiffs allege that the product wasn't even available until after June 2001. But Wood also noted challenges the shareholders will face in proving their allegations, including a heavy reliance on 27 confidential sources.
    • Notebaert in the hot seat ; Ruling goes against Qwest chief over Tellabs comments; [FINAL Edition] Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News. Rocky Mountain News. Denver, Colo.: Jan 26, 2006. pg. 2.B
  • The spectre of class actions for treble damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act changes everything. [..] In Goldwasser v. Ameritech (2000), Judge (and former University of Chicago antitrust professor) Diane Wood took the sound position that comprehensive regulation under the Federal Communications Commission precluded private suits under the Sherman Act.
    • Richard A. Epstein: A changing of the antitrust guard RICHARD A. EPSTEIN. FT.com. London: Nov 13, 2002. pg. 1
  • A federal appeals court has denied a jury award to a physiology professor who claimed that officials retaliated against him for his sex discrimination complaints. In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said it could find no evidence that there had been retaliation against University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Steven Albrechtsen, who had claimed that the school's department of health, physical education, recreation and coaching was dominated by lesbians who treated him unfairly because he's a heterosexual male. [..] Judge Diane Wood, who dissented, said the promotions that Albrechtsen was granted were given under threat of legal action based on the earlier complaints. "Thus, the hostility that erupted in 1998 was not new," Wood wrote. "It merely took on a more virulent form."
    • JURY AWARD FOR PROF NIXED ; HE CLAIMED BIAS AT WHITEWATER; [FIRST Edition] Associated Press. Madison Capital Times. Madison, Wis.: Oct 24, 2002. pg. 4.B
  • A recent opinion by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reveals the extent to which the Clinton battles have affected the balance between executive confidentiality and the needs of prosecutors. The decision came in a federal investigation of the corruption scandal surrounding Illinois Republican Gov. George Ryan. Federal prosecutors investigating the office of the secretary of state, which Mr. Ryan used to hold, sought testimony from Mr. Ryan's former chief counsel, Roger Bickel. [..] A unanimous panel of the 7th Circuit adopted -- even extended -- the prior courts' view. In a strongly worded opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee, the court held that the privilege did not exist before a grand jury and that "the public lawyer is obligated not to protect his governmental client but to ensure its compliance with the law."
    • A Loss of Confidentiality; [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Jun 3, 2002. pg. A.14
  • A former assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater, who claimed she was denied tenure for discriminatory reasons, lost her battle for tenure before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of Chicago. Mary Anne Hedrich, 64, said she was not granted tenure by the university in part because of her age. [..] "It is possible, though we express no opinion on the point, that Hedrich's tenure application could have been handled better," wrote Judge Diane Wood. "But on the record before us, no reasonable jury could conclude that Hedrich's denial of tenure violated her rights under federal law."
    • WHITEWATER PROF LOSES TENURE FIGHT; [ALL Edition] Madison Capital Times. Madison, Wis.: Dec 21, 2001. pg. 2.B
  • An Indiana man, Anthony Dye, ... sued the city of Elkhart, Ind., police officer William Wargo and, for good measure, Wargo's police dog, Frei. [..] Judge Diane Wood wrote the dissenting opinion, saying that Officer Wargo probably did use excessive force if Dye's account of events is to be believed instead of Wargo's. However, Judge Wood did agree with the majority that the dog was not a legitimate defendant. ".. . no matter how much of an animal lover one may be," she wrote, "a dog at this time is not a 'person' .. . "
    • Doggone it, the pooch was merely earning his keep. State Journal Register. Springfield, Ill.: Jul 15, 2001. pg. 11
  • SBC Communications Inc. last month paid $6.1 million to the federal government for missing performance targets agreed upon as part of its purchase of Ameritech Corp. That is pocket change compared with the $60 million former company managers are asking for in an 8-yearold age-discrimination suit. [..] A panel of three judges reversed the decision last October, sending the suit back to Indianapolis for trial. [..] Seventh Circuit judges cited in their opinion an alleged comment made on tape by a company official as one of the reasons leading to the reversal. "Worst of all was [his] statement that [Ameritech] wanted to go out and hire people under the age of 45 again. True, [he] tried to limit the damage by spinning the remark into one that expressed a desire to hire from colleges again, but a trier of fact could find that this recharacterization did little to change the meaning," wrote Judge Diane Wood.
    • Ameritech still faces $60M suit Scott Olson. Indianapolis Business Journal. Indianapolis: Jan 01, 2001. Vol. 21, Iss. 43; pg. 1
  • A group of Wisconsin smokers is not entitled to a piece of 1998's $206 billion settlement between 46 states and the tobacco industry, a federal appeals court has ruled. [..] "All parties to the MSA were represented by prominent counsel, and any questions of interpretation of that agreement beyond what we have addressed is for another day," wrote Judge Diane Wood. "We add that the administration problems that would be created by any other ruling would be nightmarish."
    • Court rules against group of smokers; [Metro Edition] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Sep 21, 2000. pg. 025.B
  • A federal appeals court yesterday ruled against the nation's largest toy retailer, finding Toys "R" Us Inc. had acted illegally to raise competitors prices and reduce competition. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel in Chicago was a major victory for the Federal Trade Commission, which had first brought the charges in 1996. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the company's challenge of the FTC's findings and its order to halt practices which the agency charged had led toymakers to deny their most popular products to discount shopping clubs. "We conclude that the commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record, and that its remedial decree falls within the broad discretion it has been granted under the FTC Act," said Judge Diane Wood, in the opinion.
    • FTC scores major court victory over Toys `R' Us; [1 7 Edition] Tim Dobbyn. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Aug 2, 2000. pg. C.4
  • A federal appellate court in Chicago shot down an attempt by the St. Croix Chippewa to put the brakes on a bid to turn Hudson's failing dog track into an Indian casino. The St. Croix, who already operate two profitable casinos in northwestern Wisconsin, asked the Chicago panel to overturn a lawsuit settlement that paves the way for the federal government to approve the casino. [..] The court's response: tough. "It is hard to find anything in (federal Indian gaming law) that suggests an affirmative right for nearby tribes to be free from economic competition," Circuit Judge Diane Woods wrote in the unanimous opinion.
    • At U.S. courthouse; [Final Edition] CARY SPIVAK AND DAN BICE. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Jun 8, 2000. pg. 025.A
  • Laws in Illinois and Wisconsin banning a type of late-term abortion were put on hold Tuesday by a Supreme Court justice. Justice John Paul Stevens barred the two states from enforcing the laws while opponents ask the Supreme Court to decide whether they violate women's right to abortion. [..] Since then, the appeals court twice refused to halt the laws' enforcement but each time decided to reconsider. Tuesday, the court refused a third time to block the laws, voting 5-5. Judge Diane Wood, writing for the five dissenting judges, called the action "ill-advised" because appeals courts disagree about whether such laws are constitutional.
    • Justice Stevens blocks abortion laws in 2 states; [METRO Edition] Laurie Asseo. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: Dec 1, 1999. pg. 4A
  • The state cannot require prison inmates to attend religion-based counseling programs, a federal appeals court has decided. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said officials at Oakhill Correctional Institution violated the First Amendment when they forced an inmate to attend meetings of Narcotics Anonymous. [..] U.S. District Judge John Shabaz accepted Farrey's explanation and threw out the lawsuit last year. The appeals court, though, disagreed: `A straightforward reading of the twelve steps shows clearly that the steps are based on the monotheistic idea of a single God or Supreme Being," Judge Diane Wood wrote for the court. "Because that is true, the program runs afoul of the prohibition against the state's favoring religion in general over non-religion."
    • CONVICTS CAN'T BE FORCED INTO RELIGION; [All Edition] Cary Segall, Wisconsin State Journal. Wisconsin State Journal. Madison, Wis.: Aug 30, 1996. pg. 1.C

Noted cases discussion[edit]

This isn't a template, just a start. Some of these received no more attention than a single mention in a local paper while others were widely reported.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so is your idea that all these cases are "noteworthy"? Because blippy local news stories are not that impressive for Court of Appeals decisions. Again, there are thousands and thousands of these. Why is there now a sudden push to place all these in Judge Woods wiki bio? And I still would prefer we come up with a list more in line with other wiki pages, or just plain common sense. No encyclopedia entry would dedicate a quarter or more of the space to rote summaries of 10-20 opinions. I don't even think Supreme Court Justices get that sort of treatment. Shouldn't the criteria be something greater than 'some newspaper ran a one-off story on this decision' - because that would justify inclusion of hundreds and hundreds of these decision summaries for every single Court of Appeals judge. Veritasjohn (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No. I certainly don't think that all of these are especially notable. But I'd say that nothing that isn't included here is notable, unless other signs of notability can be found. I don't think we should include all of these, or even half of them. The logical criteria would be those which have received the most attention. My guess is that something like five or so cases would stand out.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed some cases that didn't seem to have been covered in the contemporary press as listed above.[2]   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think a couple of the cases you pulled are fine, but Bayo is the most recent decision of the whole Seventh Circuit (en banc), one of the few en banc decisions authored by Wood, and was supported by a citation. (Opalkt (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
A blog doesn't count, but if it's notable you should be able to find better sources.   Will Beback  talk  18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, recency is not notability. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed the long descriptions a bit, to focus just on what Wood did and to leave out the background descriptions. Cases that are truly notable should get articles of their own.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That's vandalism. We discussed trimming on this talk page. If you would like create separate pages, do so. Do not simply delete information based on your own personal preferences.(JD3000 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
Read WP:Vandal (and WP:Civil) before tossing around accusations of vandalism. More to the point, He is not "simply deleting information based on his own personal preferences". The discussion of how to reduce the size of the summaries has been going on for some time, and his edit was a reasonable step in furtherance of that discussion. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rrius. Additionally, given that a number of users like JD3000, Opalkt, Winter5210, and Bobbyt02 have been making changes almost exclusively to the Wood article, then some revert any good faith changes with specious charges as "vandalism," I think some greater discussion of future changes is in order. Zz414 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are all in agreement, then I'm fine leaving it as is. I've been trying to keep a close eye on Judge Wood's opinions given the press attention, but it seems like the group has spoken. Cheers, (JD3000 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
Spare us the martyr act. I didn't pass judgment on the particulars of the edit. Rather, I found your accusation unwarranted and impolite. If you have specific issues to raise about the edits, go ahead and do so, but the edit was made in good faith, being in no way vandalism or POV. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)