Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.125.105.194 (talk) at 21:44, 24 February 2014 (→Legalese in Wiki: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconLaw Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Western State College of Law at Argosy University

Hi, I'm looking for help with a request I posted a little while ago on the Western State College of Law at Argosy University Talk page. I've prepared an updated draft for this article to address a few issues with the existing article. In general, the article is in need of cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards and needs improved sources throughout. I've provided more details on the changes between the current version and my draft on the Talk page.

So far one editor has reviewed the draft and provided me with suggestions, which I have incorporated. However, this editor has been absent from the discussion for a little while and I'm hoping that an editor who is interested in this Wikiproject can also review this request and my draft and let me know what they think. I'm ultimately looking for an editor who is willing to implement the new draft if they agree that it is an improvement. I have prepared this draft on behalf of Education Management Corporation, the school's parent company, and because of this COI I would like to avoid any direct edits to the article.

The full request on the Talk page can be found here. Thanks for taking the time to read this, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Civil violation the same as Summary offence?

I see Civil violation has been redirected to Summary offence in 2010. Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure what is meant by "civil violation" but "summary offence" in England and Wales refers to a criminal offence (i.e. not something that is tried in a "civil" court) so I suspect the answer is "no". Francis Davey (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some states of the United States (such as California), unlike most of the world, all crimes must be tried by a jury (per the California Constitution). Since the legislature has decided not to afford jury trials for some violations, they cannot lawfully be considered crimes, and thus are often considered civil (probably at common law). In addition, almost all states (constitutionally) restrict imprisonment for non-criminal debts (e.g., debtor's prisons). That's my understanding. While summary offences at English common law are mostly similar, they differ in their allowance of non-jury crimes. So no, not the same, but more similar than any other categorization. Int21h (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what we end up with is a mess though. Nothing in the article Summary offence really explains what you have said. Rather it tells me that in California there are no "summary offences" as I would (and the article would) understand them. It sounds like a "civil violation" is considered to be in a different category to summary offences anyway. I would suggest a separate article on "civil violation" that explained what they are - giving specific examples - would be really useful to make that clear. I don't think imprisonment for non-criminal debts is relevant at all. Francis Davey (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well... Every state calls it something different, and has different case law on the subject. There is also the question of what they are called. "Civil violation" is probably a term from one state that is not used in the others; same goes for infraction, traffic violation, etc. They are also based on the English common law view of summary offenses, or at least the federal and California case law classifies them as such.
IMO California's practice is in line with Blackstone's description of a summary offense, i.e. "for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those acts of parliament ... In these there is no intervention of a jury ...". Blackstone does not define summary offenses as criminal, just that they are conducted without a jury. I see California's practice as a subset, a restriction on the definition whereby these "summary" offenses may not be considered criminal, nor may violators be imprisoned.
I mentioned the lack of imprisonment for civil debt because a civil violation only causes is civil debt; in other words, you cannot be imprisoned for a civil violation under the theory that debtor's prisons were a common law practice known to the Framers of the Constitution as an exception to a jury trial (vis-a-vis the common law petty crime jury trial exception analysis). Int21h (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, OK. I think what you are saying is that terminology differs so much that having a separate "civil violation" page is not sensible. That may be right. Summary offences were (in Blackstone's time) criminal of course - they were routinely tried by justices of the peace. Imprisonment for debt was not criminal, it was civil. You issued a judgment summons against a judgment debtor and committed them to prison until they paid. I am not sure how that is relevant to the California approach - but maybe in some warped way it is. Francis Davey (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the delineation between summary offenses and whatever these other things are is not clear, but the argument can be (and is IMO) made that there is at least a modicum of relevance between them. If the new article is composed of laws that are as dissimilar from each other as they are from summary offenses, that is not really a solution to split them into a new article. Any solution, IMO, needs more material from more states with more detail and more sources. It was hard enough for me to find Ex parte Wong, which I basically used to prove a modicum of relevance to California law, and Blackstone's Commentaries mention. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need a mentor

I think I don't need to know much about law or something, as much as I need to be mentored about titling an article about law or a case based on law. I'm looking for someone who is a law expert, but also has time to mentor me ONLY about case names, not law. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need more eyes on Patrick Borchers

Patrick Borchers has recently been nominated for deletion. Since then a single-purpose account has been adding material aimed at making the subject look good, twisting the facts, adding sources that don't support the assertions, and hyping the subject's accomplishments (See also: [1], [2], [3]). There is substantial material in the article about Borchers being cited by courts in cases that probably aren't notable. This is something I don't see in any other lawyers' articles. I'd appreciate it if those who are more experienced in legal articles would take a look at the page and edit it for WP:NPOV. Thanks. 70.235.85.201 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Bluebook citation style

For anyone that might be interested, there is a Request for Comment on the appropriateness of the Bluebook citation style for Wikipedia articles at Photography is Not a Crime. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit bankruptcy

I have placed Detroit bankruptcy in Category:United States bankruptcy case law. This is probably not the correct procedure, but I am not sure how else to proceed. Any help would be appreciated.

The recent ruling in the Detroit case, on Chapter 9 eligibility, which included a court comment that the Chapter 9 plan could impair vested public pension benefits, has the potential to belong in that category. But we should probably first see what the appellate courts think of the ruling. --Pechmerle (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that WikiProject Law has rated Detroit bankruptcy as low priority. I find this hard to believe - I am sure the precedents that will be set in these legal proceedings will be ground breaking.XOttawahitech (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article and concur with it being low priority as far as WP:Law is concerned. At this point in time, it is a straight-forward bankruptcy case. It may go higher later, but from a law standpoint it is just not there yet. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit's Chapter 9 is not "a straight-forward bankruptcy case." It has already produced a ruling without precedent in the history of U.S. bankruptcy law: whether a municipality (defined as the Bankruptcy Code does, i.e. more broadly than city) can through a bankruptcy plan impair vested public pension benefits. (Judge Rhodes said yes, in his lengthy, published ruling.) That issue is already the subject of a motion seeking a direct appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Bond-buying institutions, public employee unions, and financially-distressed governmental units all across the country are following this case very closely. --Pechmerle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't case law at, so I removed the category. A category for communities that filed for bankruptcy might be appropriate. I don't know if one exists....William 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: case law "is a principle or rule established in a previous dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process". So why do you say this is not case law? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't a principle or rule established in a previous dispute(aka precedent) at this time. This is still a pending bankruptcy. It being case law, if it will ever be considered that, is something off in the future at this moment....William 15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look a the Opinion regarding eligibility - isn't it case law? XOttawahitech (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It iay be the largest city/municipal bankruptcy, but it probably isn't the largest government bankruptcy, which probably goes to Orange County, California (a county, or subdivision of the state, not a municipal corporation) for its bankruptcy in 1994 covering a $20.6 billion debt pool in which it lost about $1.64 billion in the matter of a year or so (in 1994 dollars). IOW there's nothing really special about Detroit, especially from a legal standpoint, at least not yet. Int21h (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit is the largest government bankruptcy case, ever. Orange County might have initially looked larger, but the Orange County Investment Pool (where the County treasurer did his worst interest rate bet screw ups) was declared ineligible for Ch. 9. As I note above, the public pension benefit issue is a "really special" element of the Detroit case. It's true that we shall see whether Judge Rhodes's ruling that vested public pension benefits can be impaired in Ch. 9 holds up on appeal. But as of now his ruling is a major event in bankruptcy law nationally, and practitioners in the field are considering it as such. (P.S. I am not involved in the case, nor do I live in Detroit or Michigan. Even from where I sit, in California, both the case and Judge Rhodes's ruling on the pension issue have major importance.) --Pechmerle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination market article - anyone want to help?

Think this article might be one that's relevant to Wikiproject Law?

I've become interested in the assassination market article and made a couple of edits recently as a result of an in-depth Forbes article on the topic.

Interest in editing the article seems to have picked up recently, leaving it quite messy. Anyone want to help out? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging or Clarifying the Case Law and Lawsuit Categories

I'm concerned that the Case Law Category Tree and the Lawsuits Category Tree have, in practice, become interchangeable and rival categories for any court case. I originally submitted a Category For Merger (Cfm) proposal but that submission needs to be refined to better reach consensus.

I think there are four possible ways to move forward:

  • 1 Leave: There isn't a problem with the current categorizations.
  • 2 Define & Realign Articles: Lawsuits is pretty clear as a category of court cases from civil cases. (We might also need criminal and other categories if we're categorizing by type of law at issue.) Also, we'll need to define how we know if a court case becomes a precedent as case law. (Is any attorney using a case as a precedent sufficient. Does a judge have to cite a case? Do we assume that all cases from a country's supreme court qualify? How do handle or )?
  • 3 Merge: Combine the case law and lawsuit trees into one category that covers all court cases. Could be "Court cases" or "Litigation".
  • 4 Other:  ???

Thanks RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I think maintaining separate trees will continue to prove difficult and I want Bush v. Gore grouped with other election-related court cases even though it's explicitly not case law. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is Bush v. Gore not case law? There were decisions handed down by the Supreme Courts of Florida and of the United States, each establishing precedents which have in fact been cited in later cases. The relationship is similar to that between a band and a song having the band's name. For example, Bad Company is a band, and their signature song is titled Bad Company. Although both relate to music, the band is not a kind of song and the song is not a kind of band. The same applies to the relationship between the lawsuit (the events and activities of a group of people) and case law (the published result sometimes, but not always, arising from that activity). bd2412 T 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the link I used above, the ruling itself explicitly ruled out using it as precedent in the future. Isn't the whole idea of case law that it can be used as precedent? (Case law redirects to Precedent.) Thank you for the band/song name comparison. Can you point me to some similar article pairings that discuss the original lawsuit (or criminal prosecution) seperately from the case law of the same case? (Thanks for your help understanding this)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that the Court said that the case is not a precedent is meaningless; lawyers cite it in their briefs and lower courts cite it as guiding the outcome in their opinions - see, e.g., League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463, 477 (6th Cir. 2008); Pierce v. Allegheny County Bd. of Elections, 324 F.Supp.2d 684 (W.D. Pa., 2003) ; American Civil Liberties Union v. Santillanes, 506 F.Supp.2d 598 (D.N.M., 2007). What makes it case law is that it is a published decision explaining the meaning of the law from a court whose writings have precedential value. One might as well write a song with lyrics saying "this is not a song", and then argue that it doesn't belong in a song category because the singers have sung that it doesn't. bd2412 T 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define & Realign Articles This is well within the interest of WikiProject Law and the Categorization discussion should be more active. WP:EXPERTs are needed because the distinctions are significant. To answer some of your questions (above):
    • Is any attorney using a case as a precedent sufficient? — Attorneys cite cases in their arguments to the court. Their citation of a case in a brief does not determine if the case is case law. The actual publication of the case in the reporters makes it case law.
    • Does a judge have to cite a case? — Same as with attorneys. A trial judge will cite case law when issuing a decision with regard to individual cases before him or her. But that issued decision does not become case law itself.
    • Do we assume that all cases from a country's supreme court qualify? — It will depend upon the country. In the US, SCOTUS publishes its decisions and info about cases are handled. Some of their decisions are specifically labeled as not creating precedent.
    • How do handle overruled cases or changes in government? — Different ways to answer these questions. An appellate court may overrule a trial court decision. The decision of the appellate court may thereby become case law. Or, a higher (supreme) court may overrule the appellate court. In that situation, the appellate court decision looses it's legal authority as case law. Only the Supreme court decision has legal authority. Or, a court may overrule its own earlier precedent/decision from an earlier case. In that situation the older (subsequently overruled) case is still case law, but it cannot be cited as precedent.
Complicated, isn't it! But trying to simplify it into meaningless or vague categories won't make it more clear. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge From my understanding there are multiple overlapping subsets here, but I don't think we need to categorize on everything. It is sufficient to group all cases for which we have articles on a country basis, without going into fine grained divisions of what sort of law is applied or whether or not the thing in question has become case law.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave. As was noted in the original request, a lawsuit is not the same thing as case law and case law is not the same as as lawsuit. In a common law jurisdiction, only an appellate decision creates binding case law, and only where there is a majority opinion. A plurality opinion has special rules. Trial court level decisions in a lawsuit do not create case law, and are not binding. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are different terms, with different meanings. Even case law has different meanings, dependent on where you are at. In 49 states, case law means common law, stare decisis, or let the decision stand. In Louisiana, it means something else, and they don't follow common law. GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is Category:Louisiana state case law a problematic category due to the Napoleonic Code-based law? There also must different legal standards within Category:Case law by country.Do these categories have different inclusion criteria than the US ones? What would that criteria be? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not problematic. Louisiana doesn't use stare decisis, but jurisprudence constante. That means case law is still used, but to a lessor extent and in a different manner than in a common law jurisdiction. GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave (i.e. do not merge). A lawsuit is any instance wherein a party seeks to have a court award some kind of civil relief (an injunction or money damages) for a wrong committed by another. Criminal cases, which make up a significant portion of legal actions, are not lawsuits. The vast majority of cases do not result in the generation of any "case law", since most civil cases are settled prior to an adjudication of the merits, and those that are decided by a jury (absent appeals or motions to disregard the jury verdict) similarly do not generate a court opinion. On the other hand, a great deal of case law is generated without coming from a lawsuit at all. bd2412 T 04:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question While the vast majority of cases do not form case law, it is my perception that the vast majority of Wikipedia court case articles are case law (due to notability). Is that an accurate observation? (Thanks for your input)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that there is very often a substantial difference between what makes a notable lawsuit and what makes a notable decision. There really are not that many civil cases that catch the attention of the public when they are not brought for the purpose of generating a change in the law (an exception would be the civil case wherein O.J. Simpson was sued for wrongful death following his acquittal in the criminal case for murder). bd2412 T 02:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave/do not merge per BD2412. Lawsuit ≠ case law even though some case law obviously arises from lawsuits. We have articles that focus on lawsuits in their own right, and articles that focus on case law (i.e., the written opinions of judges). Many lawsuits will be notable purely because of the parties involved or because of their particular dispute, and many of these will not result in case law because they end by settlement or by jury verdict, and even if appealed still may not generate case law because the higher court may decline to hear the appeal or summarily affirm the lower court's judgement. Conversely, most of our articles on case law arise from criminal proceedings or civil lawsuits that would not have merited articles but for the judicial opinions they generated, in which case it is the judicial document—the appellate or supreme court's opinion—that is notable. Note though that even trial courts may generate notable case law if the judge writes a widely-reported and commented upon opinion, even if it is only persuasive authority rather than binding (one of these even happens to be particularly important to Wikipedia and Commons practice). postdlf (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Bush v. Gore is an obvious example because the ruling is explicitly not case law. So that means it can't go with other election-related cases in Category:United States elections case law. It either should be removed from that cat or the cat should be broadened, correct? (Thanks for your input)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not correct. The answer is in that very section you linked to. And consider that even overruled opinions would still be categorized as case law, even though no longer having any precedential value. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your patience explaining this. Case law without precedental value is difficult to contemplate within Wikipedia since there is no article on Case law, only a redirect to Precedent I don't mean that to suggest that there is no distinction between case law and precedent, but it is defined nowhere within Wikipedia so it makes categoriging non-precendental case law challenging. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • See my answer above. Note also that Bush v. Gore does not say that it is not precedential; it merely says that the Court's consideration is limited to the circumstances presented. If another lawsuit is brought based on very similar circumstances, this case would be the binding precedent which lower courts would be bound to follow. bd2412 T 02:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Definition I'd like to get a working definition of case law that isn't subjective. Would it be accurate to say that any court precedent has shown itself to be case law if that decision is cited in at least two court cases (by the sole judge or majority of judges, plurality/minority opinions and attorney arguments don't count)?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. GregJackP Boomer! 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To extend my analogy above, using such a measure to determine whether something is case law would be like deciding whether a track on a musical album was a "song" based on whether a certain number of other bands had covered it. Case law is case law because it is a written explanation of the meaning of the law as applied to a set of facts, produced by a tribunal that has been legally empowered to make such a determination. bd2412 T 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Black's and Webster's give a start date of "case law" as 1861. And see wiktionary:case law. All refer to case law as law established by judicial decisions (as compared to statutory law). Black's refers to "reported cases". BD2412's explanation is a bit vague because it describes it as an explanation and misses the reported cases requirement. As written, it might include an statement made (written) by a trial court explaining the meaning of the law as applied in particular circumstances. E.g., the rationale for a judge's decision in a Motion for Summary Judgment. I'm trying to get a workable clarification so that we avoid categorizing articles about trials and lawsuits as case law simply because determinations were made by the judge. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, a decision does not need to be published in a reporter in order to be cited as persuasive precedent. It merely has to be a written opinion by the judge that provides an account of the judge's reasoning (i.e. not a per-curium-affirmed or an unwritten pronouncement from the bench such as the sustainment of an objection). Granted, such authorities will generally be given little weight, and would never be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but they still constitute caselaw. bd2412 T 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we are trying to elucidate on the differences between "case law" and "lawsuit", especially in terms of article categorization, I think the fact that written opinions found on LexisNexis should not be the foundation for creating articles. (We might, however, use LexisNexis data as RS. But then editors might want to say "the article has a legal/judge opinion which is on LexisNexis, therefore it should be categorized as case law!") Let's confine the case law category to those articles about decisions rendered as case law. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with BD2412 on this. A case published on Lexis or Westlaw by a court which has the ability to establish precedent should be categorized as case law. Cases unpublished by a regional or official reporter, but where the opinion was rendered by such a court should be included. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we generally agree, but there are wrinkles that need ironing out. In general the Lexis/Westlaw publications simply reflect what the official reporters or regional reporters are putting out. In California, the courts will want citations to the Cal.App. or Cal. reports as opposed to CalRptr. citations. (Reason is the judges and court research attorneys have Cal.App./Cal. in their offices. This is no longer so much the case where everything is online.) Also, we have the Daily Journal "Daily Appellate Report", which gives us cases from SCOTUS, 9th Cir., and the Cal. supremes & appellate courts. So the Dec. 10th edition has Parthemore v. Col (Dec. 6, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 15982, about whether a prisoner who needs glasses & is injured must file an administrative claim before filing a lawsuit. The opinion rendered & published by the 3rd District is case law. So, was an opinion rendered by the court? Yes. Is it published? Yes. Is it case law? Yes (unless it gets "de-published"). But remember in Parthemore the trial court also rendered an opinion, in the form of a judgment. The trial court opinion was not published in the case reporters. But a diligent editor might find a newspaper report about the suit with enough digging. The issue in this discussion is whether the the opinion is case law/precedent. In fact, the terms are largely interchangeable. "Your Honor, I have precedent/authority/case law which supports the position of my client. I cite you to Parthemore v. Col." In sum, we cannot simply say "case law is where a court rendered an opinion." If the opinion is not published, it is not case law. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that an article about a lawsuit which incidentally happened to generate published opinions that are not themselves notable, should not be treated as a "caselaw" article. bd2412 T 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the judgment is published in F. Supp., it is not caselaw. District courts do not establish precedent (even if they are cited as persuasive). GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating the evaluative with the descriptive. An article that is fundamentally about a judicial opinion (i.e., about the written interpretation and application of the law rather than just "Smith sued Jones and Jones won") is best categorized as case law regardless of the precedential value of that opinion and regardless of the court that rendered it. You're not suggesting that we merely categorize Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as a "lawsuit" and not "copyright case law", are you, merely because it was a district court decision? The article is about an interpretation and application of copyright law, and one that has proven influential even though it is only persuasive authority and not binding authority.

I would also disagree with BD2412 that the case law categories should only be reserved for when the opinions themselves would have been notable. First, that's not always ascertainable if we're talking about a lower court opinion rendered in a lawsuit that was being covered by the press anyway. Second, the basic categorization threshold generally in Wikipedia is relevance and utility. Even if the article focuses on the lawsuit as a whole, did a court issue a written interpretation and application of the law, and is there something substantive for the article to say about that? Does it help a reader to have that article in a case law category in a particular subject area, as Bridgeman undoubtedly would? Or would it just be clutter to include in a case law category, such as a lawsuit that settled or was decided by rote verdict that "Party A offered more evidence and proved their case"? postdlf (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@postdlf, I think it depends on the case. We are not going to categorize O. J. Simpson murder case as "case law" merely because some rulings were made during the proceedings. The article mentions a few, such as the exclusion of a proferred item of evidence as hearsay, and the determination that Ron Goldman could garnish O.J.'s book profits, but gives no details about the reasoning behind them. bd2412 T 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles do not need to be notable because of a category in order to be grouped in that category. If an article is about a lawsuit, it goes in the lawsuits tree. If it's about case law, it goes in the case law tree. If it's about a lawsuit that is case law it goes in both even if it is notable for one and not the other. Christ Christie and Bruce Springsteen are notable for being from New Jersey while Count Basie and Antonin Scalia are notable for other reasons, but they all get put in the same People from New Jersey category.RevelationDirect (talk)
(edit conflict) @Postdlf. "The law to be found in the collection of reported cases that form all or part of the body of law within a given jurisdiction." CASELAW, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). I am, in fact, suggesting that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. be classified as a "lawsuit" instead of as "caselaw"—primarily because it is not caselaw. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Category:United States district court cases exists under the Case Law category tree and has 210 articles. What parent category does it move to if it's not in case law? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think GregJackP is alone in that view that district court opinions are somehow never case law. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Having worked at several levels of the federal courts in the United States, all reasoned opinions can be treated under this title (and, in fact, I have seen many district court opinions reported in casebooks). I think GregJackP is focused on the law generated by binding precedents, but there are problems with that notion, since a binding precedent in one circuit is merely persuasive in other circuits, while even a district court judgment can be treated as binding precedent by other courts in that district, pursuant to local rules of the court. Of course, U.S. district court opinions are binding precedents over lower tribunals such as magistrates and bankruptcy judges; and as to future district courts inheriting the same case, under the law of the case doctrine. bd2412 T 14:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, Brigeman v Corel is both case law and a lawsuit. (And we can categorize it in both.) When we wish to cite the case as precedent, we write Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). United States v. Riggs was a criminal case, not a lawsuit, because the government made an accusation, not a civil complaint against Riggs. He appealed and a decision was published at 967 F. 2d 561. The 11th circuit cited U.S. v Weaver 920 F. 2d 1570 when issuing its decision re Rigg's appeal. Both the US v. Riggs and US v Weaver 11th circuit decisions are case law, but did not arise out of a law suit. With all this said, the real issue for the Project is who is enterprising enough to do needed work on the category scheme? – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
S. Rich, I agree with you on the Corel categorization. I wonder if also grouping it by "lawsuit" really adds anything to navigation though. I'm willing to help out with categorization but, obviously, my initial approach wasn't based on consensus so I need to better understand the other viewpoints. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Definition? There seems to be one aspect of case law that is formal where there is binding precedent based on the specific court and another that is informal where past wisdom ("reasoned opinions") informs future decisions. If we go with the former, we would almost need a grid to know which courts counted for the 29 countries in the case law tree and, for the latter, it would be pretty subjective. Obviously my proposal for 2 subsequent citations doesn't have consensus. So what standard should we use for categorizing an article as case law? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, as well as BD2412's caveat in response about the mere existence of a (routine) ruling in a lawsuit or criminal proceeding not meriting a "case law" categorization for an article fundamentally about that lawsuit/proceeding (which I think is fully consistent with my comment). Basically, "Is it useful to a reader to do so?"

I'm also inclined to say that it's not useful to categorize an article as both "lawsuit" and "[subject] case law", as I think the lawsuit category has always been just to make sure an article has some appropriate category when there really isn't anything more substantive to say about the subject other than "this is about a lawsuit". It doesn't seem like there's any point to saying through categorization that "this article is about a court's decision on an issue of copyright law, and this was a lawsuit". postdlf (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

@Postdlf. GregJackP is alone in that view that district court opinions are somehow never case law. I don't believe that district court opinions are case law, although I don't believe that I'm alone in that view. I seem to remember a case that Walmart or Kmart or something-mart appealed a district court decision because they didn't want it to set a "bad precedent"—and Judge Posner pointed out that a district court did not establish precedent but that his appellate decision did.
@BD2412. GregJackP is focused on the law generated by binding precedents. Exactly. If it is not binding precedent somewhere, it is not case law. Anything can be persuasive authority, even an article in a newspaper (granted, it probably would not be very persuasive, but I've seen all kind of cites. My view and argument is that unless it is binding precedent for trial level courts somewhere, it should not be listed as case law. That doesn't mean that law of the case or res judicata issues should be treated the same as case law. I realize that this is a technical definition, perhaps hyper-technical, but that's how I think we should address it. I'm willing of course to go along with whatever consensus is. I also don't think that the inclusion of an opinion in a casebook should be determinative, there are plenty of examples of that, such as Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (on the definition of "chicken"); Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y 2009) (browserwrap); etc. Those all exist to illustrate a rule of law, not to be determinative of precedent.
@Srich32977. I'm not sure why you are pointing out the distinction between a lawsuit and a criminal case, or the correct way to cite a case. We could also discuss parallel citation, as some states require, or the use of shortform cites. None of that has anything to do with the categorization of the articles, or whether it is caselaw or not.
GregJackP Boomer! 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply demonstrating my vast wealth of knowledge in this subject – law. All of the other stuff I know, I learned on WP. But you are correct, the concern here is setting up category trees. I've been thinking about a workable outline. – S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Careful - I haven't used bad language towards you, like <shudder>"outline"</end shudder>. :p GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Justice

I recently updated and expanded the Wikipedia article on the Institute for Justice, the public advocacy law firm that litigated Kelo v. City of New London and four other cases at the Supreme Court. I am not an attorney, and I would appreciate any review and comments from your perspective. The Institute for Justice is similar to the ACLU, but with a libertarian philosophy. This article is not currently a part of WikiProject Law, but I think it would fit here. Thanks- James Cage (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs a whole lot of work. Way too many SPS as refs, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks for the thorough review. I am using the change log to the page as a punch list, and reading up on the policies you mention (sps, wp:elno, etc.). I am still new to Wikipedia. In particular, I have not worked with some of the tags you added to the article. Please let me know if I make any changes or comments that are "not cool." Not just against a stated policy, but any changes or comments that run counter to Wikipedia culture. Again, thanks! James Cage (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone - I appreciate any thoughts or ideas. Marking things that don't meet minimum standards is very appreciated, but I would also welcome any thoughts on how to make the article more encyclopedic and useful to the reader. I have been using the ACLU page as a model (organization with similar methods, rated GA-class by 8 WikiProjects). If there is a better model, please let me know. James Cage (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon

Wikipedia's article titled Pardon says

a pardon does not set aside the conviction

But at dictionary.law.com it says

A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent.

The latter had been my understanding. Can someone cite a source for assertions made, or else correct them? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Two current events involve pardons: the highly publicized posthumous pardon of Alan Turing by the Queen, and editorials in the New York Times and the New Yorker proposing various degrees of clemency or pardon or the like for Edward Snowden.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple response would be to say that it depends on what the statute says and who is doing the interpreting. To differentiate between your two listed definitions would require further definition of what "as if it had never occurred" and "treated as innocent" means. According to that definition, at least to me, says that innocent people were imprisoned, which IMO would be an incorrect interpretation when considering US federal law at least. Even at the US federal level, 27 CFR 478.142 shows its not a simple definition (which lists pardon, expunction, reversal, setting aside of a conviction, other proceedings rendering a conviction nugatory, and a restoration of civil rights, separately). A pardon is not the same as a reversal or nullification as I understand the case law. 27 CFR 478.142 does not say they are innocent; 27 CFR 478.142 says that a pardon "remove[s] any disability which otherwise would be imposed". If a pardon meant innocence, then it would be superfluous to discuss legal disabilities concerning firearms vis-a-vis an innocent person. If a pardon meant innocence, then I would assume a pardon would also mean a whole slew of other legal oddities. Removing disabilities imposed by a conviction and saying one is innocent are two related, yet subtly different, assertions. "Innocence" itself is hard to define. There is case law to the effect that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent", and the only setting I have seen someone declared innocent is through a declaratory judgment or something (whatever it was, it was an equitable thing, not some procedure defined at law). In any event, I'm not sure how reliable ALM (company) commercial works such as CourtTV and law.com are for legal definitions. (Imagine a world where Wikipedia didn't exist and people had to rely on definitions like that! Yeesh!) Int21h (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment, Kitchen v. Herbert

23:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding same‐sex marriage in Utah, RfC here, on whether to include a new map‐color for Utah in‐light‐of the stay issued by SCOTUS ― Info por favor (talk)

Rationale for the use of national arms in a gallery?

Please give your input at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_44#Gallery of country coats of arms. Arms Jones (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary legislation, definition of

There's a discussion at Talk:Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Primary Legislation concerning the meaning of the term "primary legislation". Informed comments would be welcome there. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "misinterpretation" of common-law marriage

I've commented on some seeming contradictions between several different articles touching on "common-law marriage" here. Input welcome on how best to reconcile these. 84.203.32.187 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created new article on Chicago Options Associates

I've gone ahead and created a new article on Chicago Options Associates.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission

I'm not aware of the notability criteria for these. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enlisting Wikiproject Law to get Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to FA

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance and WikiProject Intelligence, we've been discussing trying to push the 4th Amendment from GA to FA. There's a peer review request on it, but no reviewing so far.

Would people from WikiProject Law like to help assess and improve Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear legal experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable company, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of the art

The scope, name and usage of State of the art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:State of the art. This was an article prior to 2 February 2014, when it was overwritten by a disambiguation page previously found at State of the art (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low-speed vehicle/Low-energy vehicle

See talk:Low-speed vehicle where an poorly formatted request to merge the legally-defined category "Low-speed vehicle" into the article "Low-energy vehicle" occurs. Someone will need to reformat the merge request, as it is currently using the wrong process (it is using the rename article process, which is not the correct procedure). -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working with WikiProject Japan

I am learning about law system of Japan. I found out from editorials (even when somewhat unreliable in definition) that prosecution depends on highest conviction rate (99%) to win cases with circumstantial evidences, that defense may be inept, and that pro judges may be intimidated by prosecution. Probably I'm wrong because... there should be a lot of work to do. I would hope that you can either team with WP:WikiProject Japan or create "law in Japan" task force to edit articles related to law of Japan, like criminal justice system of Japan and lay judges in Japan. From what I've learned, in Japan, there is duty of confidentiality, but no attorney-client privilege or legal professional privilege. But I don't know which article to add such information. In fact, privilege in Japan is not well-covered, and rights of defendants may be denied or disparaged in Japan. Editorials can cover such topics better than "reliable" sources do. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short titles for UK Acts of Parliament

Do short titles of UK Acts of Parliament include the definite article? Please discuss at Talk:Crime and Disorder Act 1998#Short title and page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Fuck (film)

This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Marketing poster

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of limitations article

This article is a mess. The talk page is less visited while the article still needs cleanup. I found sources discussing statute of limitations in Japan. However, I couldn't add info about Japan in its current condition. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isle of Man Companies Act 2006. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Defunct law firms of the United States. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Front of the Children

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

collegial court

collegial court is a red link. Do we have anything we can redirect it too, or do we need a new stub? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere except this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't change the fact that the concept is notable. Should I stub it for your review, then, as I gather no redirect suggestion is forthcoming? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese in Wiki

Wiki is a general encyclopedia and should avoid legalese language only understandable by trained lawyers. 91.125.105.194 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law&oldid=596976492"