Talk:Graver v. Faurot

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

A fact from Graver v. Faurot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 125 years after the Seventh Circuit referred Graver v. Faurot to the Supreme Court to decide whether United States v. Throckmorton or Marshall v. Holmes controlled, the question is still open?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Throckmorton, Marshall v. Holmes and Graver v. Faurot.

Wikipedia

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

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

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What does this sentence mean?

From the header: In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the Court denied certiorari, on the grounds that the appellate court had effectively certified the entire case to it, which the Judiciary Act of 1891 forbade them from accepting without a federal question to decide, and even though there was a question the Court preferred to answer that one without deciding a case whose facts might dictate a contrary conclusion. Everything after "and even though" is confusing to me, and the sentence as a whole is a run-on. Tisnec (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks; it was the sort of run-on that first drafts tend to produce, and I had missed a word. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Tisnec (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]