Talk:Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

Untitled

Needs to be cleaned up. Much.

...Seriously, that is one imposing paragraph.

-Niccus

What is this? ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.230.247 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ex Post Facto"

The sidebar on this article summarizes the Court's finding that the new charter "did not constitute a violation of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws." I find no evidence that the ex-post-facto verbiage was in dispute, and I don't believe the case deals with an ex-post-facto issue. Ex-post-facto is not synonymous with the contracts clause, though it does appear there. Please clarify or remove. Calaf (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Warren Bridge" Section

"The public started to complain about having to continue to pay tolls after the bridge’s profits had far surpassed the original capital, with interest; but the new investors did not care. In their opinion, they had paid a large sum for the bridge stock, and they were not about to stop collecting tolls until they themselves had turned a profit. These proprietors decided not to meet any of the public’s demands, and they refused both to improve services and reduce tolls."

Is there support for this? All the sources that I've seen indicate that the Charles Bridge investors became almost desperate to compromise with the Mass. legislature, even on the tolls issue, after bills to authorize the new bridge were introduced. See, for example Kutler's famous bio on the case, Privilege and Creative Destruction.

157.182.121.139 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Brian

Contradictory Information

While the Charles River Bridge section states that the bridges were not close together, the Warren Bridge sections says otherwise. Could someone with some knowledge of the truth fix this?

JimmyDief (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of information that is incorrect is under "Arguing the Case." In the section "It appears as though Chief Justice John Marshall..." it cannot be the case because Chief Justice John Marshall died two years earlier in 1835. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossbones18 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009192257/http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/history/defines/timeline.htm to http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/history/defines/timeline.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)