Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: yoinked[April Fools!] by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)

(
)
  • ... that Nebraska once sued a gremlin? Sources: "'Cash Is Not A Crime': The Raw Tyranny Of Civil Asset Forfeiture". Nation HQ. October 18, 2021. "19 Serious Court Cases with Hilarious Names". Reader's Digest. 2021-12-17. Retrieved 2022-01-12.Charon, Michael (2021). Fight of the Century. Simon & Schuster. p. 18. ISBN 9781501190414.Bathroom Readers' Institute (May 2015). Uncle John's Lists That Make You Go Hmmm... (Ebook). Portable Press. p. 11. ISBN 9781626863767. ISBN 1626863768.and here

** ALT1: ... that Nebraska was once sued by a gremlin? Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1974/39119-1.html

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Funny hook. Length, creation date, and QPQ check out. Good to go! 28bytes (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Reopening to propose an alternate hook (ALT1) that more accurately reflects who sued whom. 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
      • New reviewer needed to review ALT1, since original reviewer proposed it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I suggested an ALT1a—I happen to think the active language gives the punchline some more woomph. Anyways, this'll still need a new reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I mean, technically. Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC) - factual accuracy concern Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

New enough. Long enough. QPQ confirmed. No close paraphasing or copyright violations. Earwig is clear.
I don't think that the style of the case (parties and the denomination of the parties) supports the proposed ALTs. While I consider them whimsical and amusing. But literally, the car was the Defendant, and not the Plaintiff (i.e., the one who brings the suit).
I don't want to be subject to sanctions, which have been promised, foretold or at least implied. The references I added to the article do support the original hook. Given that this nomination, since it came from User:The C of E, will be subjected to increased scrutiny, we must give it 'the punctilio of an honor most certain.' If someone restores the original hook, then I think this is GTG. Given the WP:Topic ban I don't expect User:The C of E can restore the hook, so I have not bothered to post a note on his talk page, since it is moot and a vain exercise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The article needs some clean-up then, because it is at least unclear on this, e.g. from the lead It was brought by the owner of an American Motors Rambler Gremlin, whose car was seized by the American state of Nebraska on the grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. An appeal was made against the forfeiture on the grounds of a lack of due process. - of course, the sourcing of the article is about half PRIMARY and half "lists of court cases with funny names", so it might be an AfD candidate anyway (as something not notable, just skirts the line of legal case notability, for the purpose of a DYK nom); I would restore the original if the situation was clear, but will remove approval of the alt as that also isn't clear. I have no interest in clarifying; if you want to work on it (or nom at AfD), I can review. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • See above. Sources support the original hook. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yup, giving it a check of support in case 7&6 is deemed to have taken over as nom for providing refs for the original (previously stricken) hook. Kingsif (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The case the article is about is clearly about the (owner of the) Gremlin sueing Nebraska, not the other way around. So what case is the hook actually referring to, and which sources support this (ignoring that at least some of these sources are very lightweight).

  • [1] doesn't state that Nebraska sued a car. It seized a car, and the car owner sued Nebraska (which, through legalese, turned into the seized car sueing Nebraska).
  • Readers digest doesn't support the claim made in the hook, and gets in its one sentence the basic facts wrong: "Another due process suit, this one about the illegal seizure of a man’s parked vehicle after he was arrested for drug possession on foot." He was observed when coming home and parking, he was then arrested and his car searched, and in the car drugs were found... But again no support for the hook here
  • This just repeats the case name, which is not disputed
  • Finally, the primary source[2] again supports the case name, and clearly indicates that Nebraska is the appellee, and the car (owner) the appellant.

I can understand people at first being confused by the case name being the reverse order of who sued who, but I don't get that people still try to approve this now, or claim that these sources somehow support the hook. Fram (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the nuances of the designations of Defendant, Plaintiff, Appellant and Appellee. It is true that the owner of the car appealed. But this was in rem, and the defendant is nominally the object. But if the many sources can't convince you, I don't know that I can (notwithstanding over four five decades of law school and legal practice}. I recognize my opinion will be inevitably derideD as WP:OR But WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth ought to control. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"Donald D. Ruyle, the owner of the car, appeals from the judgment of forfeiture. " The (owner of the) car appeals, the state has to defend. Can you send me a link to the case where Nebraska actually sued the car. Or any source that simply states that Nebraska did this. Not a case that states that it is a case between A and B, where B sues A? As that is the case here. Is there any evidence that the case that is appealed wasn't between Nebraska and the owner, and the appeal only is between the car and the state? In any case, no the "many sources" about the funny name of the case do not convince me one way or the other, as someone with four decades of law school and legal practice yo should be well aware that such clickbait fun articles are not evidence of anything at all. Fram (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the name of the case. And here are two sources:
Perhaps your overlooked those when you read the article? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I bloody well know the name of the case by now. That's the case where Nebraska is the appellee, not the appellant. The car was seized, and the owner appealed, which is the case we have an article about. Your second source doesn't help us any further, and the last source indicates that the owner has to prove innocence, not just reasonable doubt or somesuch. Where is the source that states that Nebraska started this law suit despite being the appellee and not having any actual reason to start this supreme court case in the first place? Fram (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)\
Res ipsa loquitur. Glad that you bloody well know it.
I am not going to give you a course in civil procedure. Apparently you are speaking from ignorance and are impervious to sources; I WP:AGF but you are wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not impervious to sources, I am not really convinced by people who use their supposed 50 years of experience as an argument ad authoritatem but then use Reader's digest or the "Bathroom Readers' Institute" as evidence for a challenged hook. If you can't provide actual evidence for your hook, then it can't appear on the main page. Fram (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources.

  • 4. in rem (in rem) adj. [“Against a thing”] involving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing. — also termed (archaically) – in rem, adv. See action in rem under ACTION. Cf. IN PERSONAM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henr Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.
  • 5. “An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the court determines the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely as between themselves, but also as against all persons at any time dealing with them or the property upon which the court had adjudicated.” R.H. Graveson, Conflicts of Law 98 (7th ed. 1974) quoted in Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 797.

Your disparagement of me is being ignored.

You see the case name, but you do not understand the case name and its significance.

I am through debating this. For a thousand dollars on the mahogany I can be retained to further research this. (I was being ironic. So don't mischaracterize this as some kind of legal threat.)

Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So no arguments at all about who sued and who was sued, only about the subject of the case, which wasn't under dispute. The subject is about who has the title of property, but the case was brought by the owner of the car against the state of Nebraska, and not the other way around. If I start a case against you, then you aren't sueing me, but I am sueing you. Nebraska didn't start this case, Nebraska isn't sueing anyone or anything, they are being sued by the previous owner of the car. That's clearly what's being said at the start of the case, and that's what logic dictates as well. If I have seized something from you, I don't need or want to start a case to decide about ownership: I hope no one objects (i.e. sue me) and the current situation becomes final. Fram (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
See #3 & #4 above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the court decides who has the property. And who asked the court to make this decision? Fram (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the court decides who gets the property, and it is in rem 'against the property and deciding against the world.' It is a legal fiction and method of procedure. Your view, no matter how many times repeated, doesn't change the case name, the facts or the nature of the proceedings. I'm sorry that you didn't go to law school, but it shows. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The case name is not under dispute what the court is deciding isn't disputed either. The court presents a case against the property, which is initiated by the previous owner against the current owner. That the court or law frames this as a case between the current owner and the property, doesn't mean that the current owner "sues" the property. Presenting what you describe as a legal fiction, which isn't even maintained beyond the case title (e.g. the appellant and appellee contradict this fiction), as if it is the actual truth, should not be done. Claiming that Nebraska sued a car is simply not what happened, and if you, from some legalustic procedural argument, want to maintain that the opposite isn't correct either, then a completely different hook is needed or the DYK simply closed. Fram (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here from WT:LAW. Not a Nebraskan lawyer, so I'll just ask [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], do you have another example of a case named in the [Person] v. [Object] format? JBchrch talk 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, not sure what happened there, but this was means to ping 7&6=thirteen. JBchrch talk 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
All or most of the sources listed above have myriad examples. It is a common format in drug forfeitures. Hypothetically, U.S. vs. boat. State vs. $$$. State vs. 1970 Cadillac. As the Reader's Digest mentions: United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey (1876); South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats. It is the way that forfeitures are often enforced, depending on the jurisdiction. What do you want exactly?
I never said I was a Nebraska lawyer. Forfeitures at the state level in Michigan do not typically name the object. This was what happened in the John forfeiture case (the innocent owner lost her car because of the misconduct of her husband with a street professional). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out if this type of naming is common or whether it's a quirk of this particular case, and apparently it is common. Also found a recent example. This last one is valuable, since it's a recent complaint at the federal level, and it states "The Defendant in rem is a large cuneiform tablet bearing part of the Epic of Gilgamesh." So it seems like objects do indeed get sued by authorities. Although this is not strictly sourced for this particular case, it seems like the WP:TRUTH of the matter is that the car got sued. Since this is running for April 1st, I'm inclined to approve the hook. JBchrch talk 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here from WT:LAW. As I understand it, the question is whether the suit was commenced by the state or by the owner of the car. The confusion is understandable, since practice varies from state to state. However, in this case the suit was commenced by the state. We know this for three reasons. First, the statute under which the case was brought, then Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-4135 but now recodified as Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, states that a petition shall be filed in district court by the party seizing the same. Second, the style of the case names the State of Nebraska first. While some courts of appeal list the appellant rather than the plaintiff first (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court does this), we can tell from the case that the State was the appellee, so it must have been the plaintiff. Third, the dissenting opinion by Justice Clinton refers to the owner of the car as the defendant. Technically, of course, the “defendant” was the car itself, but in practical effect the owner was the defendant, and he/the car therefore could not be the plaintiff. John M Baker (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, since there seems to be some confusion as to the characterization of property as a defendant, here is an explanation from Am.Jur.2d, Forfeitures and Penalties § 17 (2021) (footnotes omitted): “Although forfeiture proceedings are deemed quasi-criminal in character or nature, civil forfeiture acts in rem against the seized property itself, under the legal fiction that the object is guilty of the crime. An in rem forfeiture proceeding is brought under the legal fiction that property itself is criminally at fault or is the progeny of criminal works. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against real or personal property, litigated as though the object were conscious instead of inanimate and insentient. Thus, the law ascribes to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong, and the proper defendant in a civil in rem forfeiture is the property itself.” John M Baker (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In that case, it seems perfectly appropriate for a April 1st hook to suggest that a car got sued. JBchrch talk 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. So if I understand this right, Nebraska sued dozens or hundreds of cars per year ("sued" as in rubberstamped in a police court or something similar), and what's special is that in this case the previous car owner appealed. Isn't a hook focusing on a completely mundane, commonplace aspect (and presenting it as if it happened "once") which didn't get any attention as such (no one paid any attention or gave any coverage to this car being seized) rather misleading then? It looks wrong to take something which is an everyday occurence, and put it on the main page as if it is something special. Fram (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Fram
A. You tried lawyering from ignorance.
B. As you now know:

*6. action in rem (in rem) An action determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves, but also against all persons at any time claing an interest in that property. – also termed (in Roman law) actio in rem, actio realis. See also IN REM. Garner, Bryan A.; Black, Henry Campbell (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 30.

C. When that failed, you turned to WP:Wikilawyering. As I predicted, close scrutiny, if not outright hostility, of this nomination was inevitable. Your motives are best known to you; and I guess not relevant anyway.
D. That something is unique, extraordinary or sui generis is not a requirement for DYK.
E. Indeed, content at DYK hooks is supposed to:
"Content
"The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness. [Emphasis added.]
"The hook should be neutral. ...
"When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content."
F. Finally, that this is legally “routine” does not diminish its usefulness as a DYK hook.
As your own position has proven beyond peradventure, this type of legal action is little known and less understood by the general public.
It deserves the light of day and is proper on the main page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Uh, no. You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it is. Your version of the article still seems to be deliberately written in a confusing way: "a Nebraska Supreme Court civil forfeiture case. It was brought by the American state of Nebraska[...]" Did the state bring a case in front of the supreme court? No, they didn't. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Uh, no. That is a construct/figment of your own imagination. It ain't in the hook. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No idea what "isn't in the hook". Fram (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You have merely established that you are 'easily confused.' Hopefully the other editors aren't. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it is As a quick resonse: 1) the hook doesn't say that the State sued a car (which would be unexceptional), it says that the State sued a gremlin, which is funny and doesn't happen everyday. 2) Articles about higher court cases typically include the entire case history: pick any article at WP:FA § Law as an example. JBchrch talk 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • From WT:LAW. I agree that the hook is quite funny, and I don't see any problems with it. Apparently this particular forfeiture case was important enough to warrant coverage in RS, thus suitable for coverage by us. That it was a routine case is untrue, routine cases do not make it before a state's supreme court. The in rem proceedings make sense to me? Technically the state sues the object, but its owner obviously has an interest in the object and is the one who takes it through the court system. The object cannot literally hire a lawyer and appeal. In rem jurisdiction is a silly legal anachronism that has been luckily done away with in most contexts, but forfeiture is a hold out. The article isn't perfect, but a DYK only requires that the page be reasonably cited and up to standard. I think this case is a perfect fit for the April Fools slot. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with Eek, and the legal explanation of state "suing" the vehicle made sense to me. Just going to reinstate tick because further explanations really do support it... Here, the legal technicalities may be weirder than the hook, but clearly far too lengthy. Approve alt0 for AFD as Eek suggested. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT0 to T:DYK/P2
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nebraska_v._One_1970_2-Door_Sedan_Rambler_(Gremlin)"