Talk:Justification and excuse

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement because quoting a State Supreme Court decision is not copyright infringement. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where Wikipedia states this? Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Theroadislong. You correctly placed the tag, because I made an error and left the page without adding the reference. I fixed it here. Statutory laws and common law (e.g., supreme court decisions) are never copyrighted. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Harvard blog post, judicial opinions are likely public domain. Regardless, limited quotation is almost certainly fair use.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]