Jump to content

Talk:Vosburg v. Putney

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

Factually Incorrect and Misleading

[edit]
  • Orton wrote for the majority in 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. (the first appeal);
VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 276
October 20, 1890, Argued; November 5, 1890, Decided
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.
OPINION: ORTON, J.
  • Lyon wrote for the majority in 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. (the second appeal);
VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 234
October 26, 1891, Argued; November 17, 1891, Decided
OPINION: LYON, J.
  • defendant (Δ) was George Putney not Hiram Putney;
  • plaintiff (Π) was Andrew Vosburg not Jonathan Vosburg Wermsker (talkcontribs) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Father was Seth Vosburg not Andrew Vosburg Wermsker (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • legally material facts are munged in with irrelevant facts (parents, jobs, wealth);
  • legally material facts are munged ad hoc from both appellate actions;
  • the rule of law is entirely obfuscated;
  • procedural history and facts are intermingled;
  • issue and holding are munged, and thus incorrect (mixing actions);
  • most importantly, there are ZERO citations/references.

Due to the sheer volume of changes necessary to hack this into something accurate (or something that won't shame a 1L under professorial cross), I submit this as justification to reboot this topic with a ground-up rewrite (which I am working on now) Wermsker (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

[edit]

I've completed the rewrite. Mixed audience targeting, I tried to follow these guiding principles:

  1. accurate
  2. informative
  3. concise
  4. student friendly

I was less interested in appealing to the "fully informed" audience that can just as easily read the full case.

I didn't reference page numbers because many editions exist for some of the casebooks. I err'd on the side of credibly verifiable.

While I go a bit deeper than any single casebook, there are some professors that have turned this one case into a full semester launch pad. So I didn't even try to mount a full analysis with all the potential forks.

If, upon reading this rewrite, you become violently ill or emotionally unstable [[File:|18px|link=]], take the appropriate measures to remedy your discomfort. wermsker (ATC) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is moot. [1] Wermsker (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]