This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.
A fact from South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
I note that the image of the cat was re-added earlier only for it to be removed again. I think it's time to establish consensus over whether an image of a cat is really required here now the article is no longer subject to the fun part of the main page? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was restored so the set builders could see what the options were. I don't mind either way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm not really understanding in this article is why this was a case against the cats and not against the driver. The article explains what kind of case this is and what it means, but there's nothing about what led to this case being in rem rather than in personam. I mean, the entire case and judgment doesn't seem to do anything about preventing the driver from getting 15 more cats in her car. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case was about the cats were being seized by the state because they were being kept in poor and dangerous conditions and the owner trying to get them back. For the purposes of the case, the cats are the property that the case is being brought against. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
