Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why I added Legal certainty to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/to do

  • English Wikipedia contains 23 references to "legal uncertainty" Google search
  • English Wikipedia contains 26 references to "legal certainty" Google search

Teofilo talk 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

International Criminal Court

Surely the International Criminal Court article should be included in WikiProject Law. It's been rated as a good article and I think it's of high importance to this project but I'm hopelessly biased so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Sideshow Bob Roberts 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Impracticability

I started an article on the doctrine of impracticability in contract law, but it's still kind of stubby...hopefully you folks will help me improve it. --Eastlaw 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on an article series

I would appreciate very much any constructive comments/criticisms you could give me on Copyright in Russia, Copyright law of the Soviet Union, Copyright law of the Russian Federation, and International copyright relations of Russia. Just leave comments at the respective talk pages, or here, or on my talk page. Lupo 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Devol

Treaty of Devol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Transaction bible (AfD)

Transaction bible has been nominated as an Article for deletion, which I support on the grounds that the article content is original research. However, if you can provide third party reference (such as citing a book or academic journal), then perhaps the article may retained. --Gavin Collins 08:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Restatement (Second) of Contracts (AfD)

Restatement (Second) of Contracts has been nominated for deletion Article for deletion on the grounds of notability, I know ignorance is no defence, but I am ignorant of this topic (and not the only one) and really do not know if it is notable or not. Could someone with knowledge of this topic please help us understand the merits of this topic and help inform the AfD of its relevance. Thank you all in advance.KTo288 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some background on this and will comment tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The treatise to which this article refers is one of the most well-recognized and frequently-cited in all of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Every first year law student in every ABA-accredited law school in the United States is familiar with it, and it is probably the most-cited non-binding authority in all of U.S. case law. It is a work without peer in terms of overall influence and recognition among the bar and bench, with the possible exception of the Restatement of Torts. It is prepared by the American Law Institute. dr.ef.tymac 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again to everybody.KTo288 08:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone others already got to this and said the same things I was going to. Based on that, the AfD nomination has been withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank

Ted Frank is notable for writing lots of legal opinions. However, the majority of the editors to the article are not lawyers and so his general thought is difficult to write up, and as a consequence, the section on his viewpoints is very thin. If some people here could pitch in and take a look at his work, we would be grateful. The article is currently on AfD because it doesn't have this, so this is quite urgent. Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've made some commentary and made a very weak vote to keep based on what I've seen at AfD and on the subject page, but tagged it with {{notability|Biographies}}. Quaere: Since he is a lawyer, and his arguable notability qua lawyer is the basis for the article, does the article deserve the tag {{law-bio-stub}}? --Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And if not a {{law-bio-stub}}, is there another appropriate tag for a marginal significance law bio?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

    • I concur, this seems to me to actually be a candidate for speedy deletion under criteria G11 (Blatant Advertising) and A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content) and while we're about it, we may want to take a serious look at its supposed publisher the Franco-Indian Lawyers Association. --Doug.Talk 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have these non-existent fora listed?

We have the following listed under General strategy and discussion forums

Why? Do we intend to use them? Would they be useful? If so, why don't we get them going? If not, why don't we delete them?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree -- projects all too often leave the default project templates unadapted with ugly red links! I'm deleting them now with the power of the Wikipedia editor! --Lquilter (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative (Law)?

I notice that the Cooperatives requests the article Cooperative Corporations Law and that the article Cooperative is out of control, very long and inaccurate at least as to the law of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with. Cooperative Corporations Law seems like a very long an not too intuitive title, any thoughts on Cooperative(Law) for an article? --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub Tags

If one comes across an untagged law stub, is it preferable to tag the stub on it's main page with {{law-stub}} (or a more specific version, if appropriate) or to tag the article on its discussion page with {{WikiProject Law}} and rate the quality as "stub", or both?

Do I understand properly that if I create a new law stub, I could tag it with the former but it would be inappropriate for me to do the latter as that would amount to rating my own article?

--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review of Schabir Shaik trial

Schabir Shaik trial has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request - ECJ

Hi, I've been trying to improve the articles for the European Union institutions to GA status. Last on my list is the European Court of Justice. Now it has been years since I studied law, while I am getting somewhere with the prose and references I do not have the legal knowledge or sources to bring this up to scratch. If people are willing to help out it would be much appreciated. - J Logan t: 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Antitrust law--need to improve article on merger guidelines

The current article on the USDOJ/FTC merger guidelines is both inaccurate and inadequate. I am hereby requesting assistance in improving it. I put some useful links on the article's talk page to help people with this. --Eastlaw 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request - Arguido

This is a status in Portugese law for a sort of "formal suspect" that doesn't have an equivalent in British law. At the moment it's in the news a lot as it's been applied in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The article Arguido could do with informed help to make it clear what it is and isn't. Timrollpickering 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States Law Firms cited for Misconduct

Category:United States Law Firms cited for Misconduct has been nominated for deletion, debate is here. This seems like a discussion that could use some expert opinion. Thanks, Xtifr tälk 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)" -- Terry Carroll 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

R v Steane

This is listed as an "obviously missing" article. Assuming it's the 1947 case about the journalist & the relationship between duress & purpose, I'll happily have a go at starting it, although I haven't actually practised criminal law for a while. Let me know if this is OK. --Rodhullandemu 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead, much appreciated indeed. If you need any assistance, please feel free to ask here or post a follow-up on the talk page of the article itself. One point worth remembering: the article should be accessible to a general audience, as that is the target audience of Wikipedia, and most are not even (prospective, current or former) law students, let alone practicing attorneys. Thanks for being willing to help out. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had a quick tour round some legal pages, to see where Steane would fit in and how cases are cited (no external law report references?). Sadly, even given the need to communicate to a layman and the need to state the law correctly, I think there's a bit of a mess here, and that's just looking at "theft". I'll happily spend some time cleaning it up but I'm not keen on jumping in and treading on toes. If there's a UK Criminal Law group I'll happily join it, or even start it. Sorry if this rambles but it's late here. pls message me if you think I'm right|wrong|plain barking. I'm really only interested in WP being authoritative. --Rodhullandemu 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your remarks are entirely appropriate. Starting a separate group as the one you've identified, however, may not be the most fruitful application of your energy should you decide to help out here, as you've obviously discovered there are some pretty basic deficiencies with articles in this area. Since there are probably few or zero jurisdictions where Wikipedia editing counts toward billable hours or CLE credits, this circumstance is not surprising in the least.
Some who are capable of rising to the challenge understandably refrain from doing much more than very minor and incremental improvements, for various reasons. Sometimes it's better to start a new article from scratch and take individual responsibility for its content, quality and references in order to make the most cost-effective use of one's volunteer time.
Nevertheless, proceed as you see fit.
As far as "treading on toes" if you can improve the quality of any material here, and do so with appropriate substantiation, references, and tactful explanation of your rationale (should your improvements be contested) that's really all that's necessary. dr.ef.tymac 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article Court of Appeals

Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. --Mathew5000 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

  • 27 September 2007 - expires 2 October
Terminataz (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
FCA (Asian gang) (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

this comment might not be associated with the Grosso article but one of the others --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC) This one lost - probably wouldn't have helped but {{PROD}} should always include a reason in the summary.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Emanation of the state

I have created this article as a stub as requested on WP:REQUEST. However, I am not an expert so it would be good if someone knowledgeable could have a look at it and make sure it is all okay. Thanks in advance. --carelesshx talk 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why use Cornell.edu instead of us.gov?

What is the reason for all of the links to US Code going to Cornell.edu instead of to a US gov site? Sbowers3 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a better site; more searchable, more historical information, and also has been around longer, so more editors are used to using it. -- Terry Carroll 17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And, as a government user I can say that at least in my experience, even the U.S. government uses it. It's the standard. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Cornell does a bang-up job of maintaining that site. I've donated money to them in support of it, because I use it so much in my practice! bd2412 T 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Government site, as any governmental site, tends to be more outdated than private sites. As a law student myself, I can tell you from experience that government sites are often out-of-date and rarely in an easily searchable medium. (forgot to sign) Jophus00 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Does anyone here have a suggestion for a better name for Freedom of panorama? This term apparently has been created at the Commons as a translation of the German de:Panoramafreiheit. It's also called Straßenbildfreiheit in German (literally: "street-image-freedom"). We need a better name for this concept, see Talk:Freedom of panorama. Please comment over there so that we can keep this discussion in one place. Thank you. Lupo 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Death threat AfD

This stub is currently up for deletion. I feel it has plenty of room for expansion as noted on the talk page. I'd really be interested in adding legal definitions for the term, and how local jurisdictions handle them. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_threat --George100 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In cases like this, the article should be merged with something more comprehensive until that expansion has made an independent entry sustainable. bd2412 T 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Compelling state interest

I saw that this was on the "to do" list. Perhaps the person who created this article was not familiar with strict scrutiny. Because both are rather short articles (although they are a part of the first year American law school curriculum and involve hundreds of pages in a Constitutional law textbook), I have proposed that they should be merged--and possibly a redirect from compelling state interest to strict scrutiny would be good. Compelling state interest is one part of the strict scrutiny analysis of Due Process or Equal Protection claims. Legis Nuntius 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a "compelling state interest" or any other analysis of an interest, is meaningless verbalization outside of the concept of the legal framework that requires the analysis -- in this case, "multi-tier" scrutiny for civil rights due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. The existence of this seperate article is apparently based on a half-cocked reading of some "strict scrutiny" cases that ignores constitutional taxonomy. Its existence is fundamentally flawed and its content is inaccurate and misleading. Basically, I think the article is *dangerous* to a reasonable laywiki's attempt to learn about constitutional law and should be merged-or-deleted promptly. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Self-follow-up: Since the related articles on strict scrutiny and rational basis review are themselves less than GA, I have a more radical idea: what if we put rational basis review, strict scrutiny, and all other instances of "multi-tier scrutiny" into one article? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
Textbooks divide 14th/5th Amendment Analysis into parts. State action is one such example of another piece often divided from the complete analysis. My only point was that it may not be necessary to have a separate article for compelling state interest. "Multi-tier scrutiny" would be more akin to "14th Amendment Legal Analysis," but would be even more broad because it would include the 5th and 1st et alt. Strict scrutiny occurs in due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims. I think it should remain separate. Although it is a short article now, it could become quite lengthy. Legis Nuntius (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested article for WP:Law

I nominated To Kill a Mockingbird for GA status earlier this week, and have been working on it for a couple months now. In adding to the content of the article, I found enough information to justify a subsection on Atticus Finch as a lawyer-hero and his significance to the legal profession. I was unaware that the character caused so many to choose the legal profession. But I thought I might suggest the article's inclusion under your project due to the character's impact. (Harper Lee would be pleased, too, I'm guessing.) I'm not a member of WP:Law, so I can't presume to add it myself. --Moni3 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Trade Agreements Act of 1979

I needed to read up on the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Finding no Wikipedia article, I created at least a stub. Feel free to elaborate on it. -- Terry Carroll 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What class would the act be a part of, sales, commercial law? Legis Nuntius 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Justices/State and Federal Judges

What is the notability on Judges and State/Federal Justices. Thanks. Miranda 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is still WP:BIO, with the most relevant being Politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures."
For state judges, many are statewide elected officials (but is varies from state to state), so they would automatically be notable, and some that do not may qualify under a different criteria (lots of press coverage), or from a previous political office. Federal judges meet the national office and are thus notable under this criteria. I hope that helps. Aboutmovies 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that that's the standard, because I think it's not very helpful, particularly for state judges. While state judges are elected, judges are often not "politicians" in the sense of running active campaigns and gaining widespread name recognition. (Roy Moore is notable as an exception.) If they are elected, then they are by definition not a lifetime appointment and so may have a much shorter tenure with much less opportunity to significantly influence the law. --lquilter 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just remember that politician does not mean elected, I really should have avoided the elected part above. The differentiation is that some state judges are not statewide offices, some are divided into districts (often counties). Also, though a judge may not serve very long, the same is true of state and federal legislators. Some U.S. House members may only serve two years, or even less if serving out a partial term. The role of notability is not to determine who makes an impact, only if they are worthy of note. Though not perfect, the current guidelines are pretty good since it helps take away the subjectability of notability and places the process into standard objective criteria. That way there is no, well I haven't heard of this person so they can't be notable. This way notability can be proven/established by showing someone meets one of the standard criteria, or they made it through general notability that is demonstrated with citations to relaible sources. Both are objective and avoid the I've heard of them so they are notable and the opposite argument. Aboutmovies 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am leery of classifying judges among politicians, especially federal judges who are appointed, and may have engaged in no political activity prior to appointment. For the record, I think judges should have their own bio standards, and the standards should indicate:

  1. All U.S. federal judges are inherently notable, as they are U.S. government officials who receive lifetime appointments by the President of the U.S., with confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
  2. All judges who serve on the highest court of a U.S. state are inherently notable.
  3. All judges who are elected to office by a statewide vote are inherently notable.
  4. Outside the U.S., the same principals should apply - judges appointed by a country's chief executive and approved by its legislature should be deemed notable if the country is one in which judges are independant from the government (i.e. North Korean judges, even those appointed by the pres., are just puppets of the state, so only the judges of the highest court would be notable).
  5. Other judges, such as U.S. magistrates, and state trial and intermediate appellate judges, are not inherently notable, but should be deemed notable if they preside over a notorious or widely publicized trial, if they serve for an exceptional length of time (say, over 25 years), if they are elected by their peers to be chief judge of a large court system (although some court systems do this by seniority or rotation, so it's not that big a deal), or if they are investigated, tried, or disrobed for corruption or some scandal related to their office.

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This list sounds good to me. Bearian 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to map it to judges in England and Wales. The way I read it none of our judges count (since they aren't approved by the legislature) but that makes no sense and so I am sure its not meant. After all *I'd* be hard pressed to name more than one or two US judges, but I could name hundreds of EW ones 8-). Really, I'd be happy to let notability do what it says on the tin. Many of our higher court judges are going to be notable, but not all. Francis Davey 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice list, but you would have to bring this up at WP:BIO to change the criteria. WikiProjects don't usually get to make/change policies on their own. However, since this is a common misconception about federal judges, they are politicians, every last one of them. Being a politician is not about being eleceted, it is about being part of the political process which does not necessarily mean elections. This is not my opinion, that's the opinion of dictionaries. Politicians elected to office are elected officials, and politicians. All judges I know are invovled with the governing process, in the U.S. they determine what the law is (see Marbury v. Madison) and thus are "a formally recognized and active member of a government...", thats why the judiciary is the third branch of the government (i.e. the political system). Aboutmovies 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate sub-cat under WP:BIO for judges; most countries (other than the U.S.A.) do not elect their judges, and so the criterea for elected officials is of little assistance. For the UK, I would have thought as a rule of thumb that:

  1. Anyone who made it to CA or higher was a shoo-in.
  2. Most HC judges are probably sufficiently notable unless they served for only a short period and did not give any judgments in cited reports.
  3. Most CC judges are probably not sufficiently notable unless they have been caught sniffing cocaine and cavorting with prostitutes by the News of the World.
  4. For DJs and stipes, they probably need to get caught sniffing cocaine and cavorting with prostitutes with Elvis Presley and Jimmy Hoffa to be notable enough, or at the very least filming themselves having sex with other judges whilst snorting cocaine. Allegedly.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need to establish some criteria of notability of judges. The reason that I had asked is, I am researching a federal judge (who was a appointed by a president), and a state supreme ct. judge. I just wondered if we had a nobility criteria set upon that. Thanks for the help. Miranda 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Child support

There are various merge, renaming proposals up at this article. It would be interesting to get some other input on the talkpage, as I am concerned about admitted "pro-father-rights" views amongst the only editors commenting there to date, and I know nothing about the topic. Slp1 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would second this, we need help over there. There's now a proposal to actually delete the article. I'm the only one commenting right now who is not in the "pro-father's rights" camp, and it would really, really help if some other editors could step in with their input. Specifically, there is an editor who is repeatedly insisting that the international definition of child support as a family law issue is "too narrow," that child support is a "liberal social policy" rather than law (?!) and is seeking to bend the article to his own (anti-CS) views. DanielEng 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
After skimming through the talk page of the article, I see that DanielEng is absolutely right here. There are obviously one or two POV-pushers who are making unsupported claims and proposing drastic action like deleting the article. I've asked a couple questions to hopefully get a straight answer, which should hopefully reveal whatever agenda they have in a simple paragraph. · jersyko talk 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to work with this pair at the Fathers' rights movement page, so am grateful that others are taking an interest and adding their 2 cents. Thanks. Slp1 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
One of them just left me a level 4 vandalism warning for removing his templates and had the nerve to claim they were POV. LOL. I'm working on citing and punching up the article itself, but I'm thisclose to losing my temper with this guy and doing something that probably will result in a legit warning, so I think I will step back from the Talk Page for a while. Thanks for everyone who has stepped in--I hope you will continue to do so.DanielEng 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this might be of interest--Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Child_Support_PolicyDanielEng 09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Things have quietened down and Child Support, thankfully, but the action has moved to the Fathers' rights movement, though at a different level. I have been trying to work with various POV editors (for and against fathers' rights) there for a very long time, and I would be very very glad of some outside voices/opinions, as I am getting frustrated, and frankly almost ready to give up the fight to keep the article neutral. --Slp1 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I went over to Fathers' rights and had a look...oy. I would love to help you but I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one. I was going to suggest a Peer Review but I see it's already had that. Would something like third opinion be helpful here maybe?DanielEng 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Only just thought to check back here. Thanks for the thought, but I have decided to just opt out of the article. Life is too short, frankly, especially about a subject that I don't care about! It is too bad, as I had just been to the library and got a great academic book on the subject, but all the resistance to anything that doesn't toe the party line just gets to be hassle after a while. Someone else will go by to take up the slack sometime! --Slp1 01:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the child support page. The article as presented is very similar to textbooks on the subject with a few exceptions. First, the article does not go into the detail or cite cases when describing the various concepts. Second, the article goes into extreme detail on specific state policies e.g. MA policy on custodial payment of the first $100 of medical expenses, which are typically not covered in family law textbooks. Third, the article contains some minor errors, such as the quote that support ends at the age of majority (17-19); in a significant number of jurisdictions, support ends as late as the age of 23 for college classes (NY,NJ,CT etc). The article would be improved by providing the common law history of "maintenance" from the ancient criminal action of bastardy. The arguments that the article is too narrow miss the mark. Because this is an English wiki, American law is more relevant than what internationally minded wikipedeans may believe. England and its former colonies take note of each respective country's policies and legislation. Canada cites American courts constantly, and some legal concepts such as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress emigrated from England as late as the 20th century. England followed the US example in creating Rape Shield statutes in the 70s or 80s. The arguments in child support seem silly when compared to the res ipsa loquitor article, which would have the same issues as child support albeit without the controversy. Child support needs case citations to the major legal doctrines e.g. Bast v. Rossoff (NY), (significant time spent with a child is grounds for a reduction in support payments). While the jurisdiction is specific, these cases are examples of doctrines common not only in the US, but in other English Common Law systems. School limits what I can contribute on wikipedia, but at some point I may be able to dig up my family law notes. Legis Nuntius 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's an encyclopedia, so an article "similar to textbooks" is what we want. The quote about support ending at the age of majority is cited, says "typically" and not "always." In many English-speaking countries, such as NZ and the UK, support ends at majority regardless of what the child is doing. The provisions for college education/support are also noted. Anything specific to American law and child support is best off at the Child support in the United States article, not elsewhere. DanielEng 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There is one error above I did not realize until today. Maintenance is not a product of common law, but it originated in the Poor Act of 1601. The Poor Act was incorporated into all British colonies. Lord Blackstone's comment in 1765 was that support was a moral right stemming from the Natural Law. Interestingly, the Poor Act required maintenance of fathers to children, grandparents to grandchildren, and children to parents. I think the article's similarity to a textbook on the subject is strong cause against its deletion in spite of the proposal on the talk page. The exceptions I mentioned are not major. Interestingly, there is an Australian law review journal that discusses requiring support past the age of majority, as we do in a number of US states. Legis Nuntius 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PR, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

Request input re use of US arrest warrants in Canada.

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here can provide some input on a discussion about the application of U.S. arrest warrants in Canada. In these ([1], [2]) edits a user maintains that news reports (citations in article) stating that an arrest in Canada made without an arrest warrant are false because the arrestee was a US army deserter, and therefore an arrest warrant existed and was enforceable in Canada (see discussion here for details). TIA for your input. Pete.Hurd 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for posting this. It led me to the intoxication defense pages, which have been in need of heavy revision for the last couple of years. Of course, that explains quite a few other articles. Legis Nuntius 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Always a fun topic! — xDanielx T/C 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Idem sonans

I added a paragraph to the idem sonans article which was on the project's "To Do list", although I could have thought of some more pressing projects. This common law doctrine exists in the Uniform Commercial Code in article 9 at least. Article 9 of the UCC, secured transactions, has been adopted in all but 10 states in United States. I put a brief explanation of how financing statements work and what UCC 9-402 means. Because this is a common law doctrine, it should show up in several aspects of contract law besides the security interest and in jurisdictions based off of the English common law system. I am not certain of the New York exception immediately following the paragraph I added. New Yorkers may wish to elucidate. I am also uncertain of the familiarity that others may have with secured transactions, but their input would be appreciated. If there are no objections from the person who added the topic to the To Do List, I shall remove it. Legis Nuntius 04:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Juristic or Juridical person vs. Corporate personhood - WikiSolution?

Hi all,

I have made a substantial effort to clean up the POV wars over "corporate personhood" by creating a separate page for the Corporate Personhood Debate leaving the Juristic person page (hopefully) clear of the POV war landmines.

To this end, I examined some similarly contentious issues and found Wikipedia precedent for handling this kind of problem through the use of separate pages for (as an example) Abortion (medical) and Abortion Debate (cultural/political/sociological).

I'm hoping that similar handling will result in a really great page describing the meaning and history of the Juristic person concept, and hope all of you scholarly legal types will feel safe to venture into those waters again.

The Juristic person page is in desparate need of help and could really benefit from additional history and other stuff that many of you are certainly qualified to add...unfortunately, that's not me.

riverguy42 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I have added what I believe is a description of how copyright infringement litigation works in America with citations to appropriate cases. I have also created the article Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, which was on the "requested articles" page for wikiproject law. The case deals with Seinfeld and illustrates an anaylsis of the fair use doctrine. Review, additions and subtractions are welcome. Legis Nuntius 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting article about the Castle Rock case, well done! It's curious that NBC and the Seinfeld producers liked the book and used it with promotions for a while, then changed their minds and sued for infringement. I wonder if there was any cease and desist communication first, or a demand to execute a license, or if they just dived right into the lawsuit. --Publictransport (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Debatepedia links

External links to Debatepedia articles have been made numerous pages. Curious about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.115.208 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the debates in English? Because this seems like anonymous promotion of a private commericial website, I will skip this one. Legis Nuntius 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Article collaboration request

Hi all! I'm not sure if this is the proper place (I know there's some sort of article request page on en-wiki somewhere else), but I'm wondering if anyone would like to collaborate on an article with me, specifically Fajujonu v. Minster of Justice. It's a fairly big case in Irish nationality/immigration law, and although the decision has been overturned by the Lobe and Osayande case (which would be another cool article to work on) and the 27th Amendment, it's definitely an important bit of information. I'd be more than happy to do the legwork (content and law review research), but I'm a bit hesitant to tackle it straight on by myself, as my knowledge of the finer points of law are wanting a bit. Thanks in advance, fellows! gaillimhConas tá tú? 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the time/knowledge. Let me know if you'd like any copyediting! :-) — xDanielx T/C\R 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Common law historian needed

DYK refers to the Dorothy Talbye trial, a well-done and interesting article dealing with justice in colonial Salem, Mass. It contains this statement:

In 1637, American colonial law regarding murder followed English common law, the basis of which was essentially biblical. (Emphasis added.)

The intial statement is correct as a general matter, but I question the now-italicized part. (Only one of the three cited pages of the given reference supports is available online). Undoubtedly the colony, being theocratic in nature, attempted to follow biblical proscriptions, but it may go too far attribute this result to common law, or state that the basis of common law is essentially biblical. Can anyone address this? Kablammo (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Lord Blackstone, the English common law originated in antiquity from the mixture of races: Romans, Danes, Saxons, Normans etc. The Natural Law came from God, that we "live honeftly, fhould hurt nobody, and fhould render to every one it's due; to which three general precepts Juftinian a has reduced the whole doctrine of law." (Referring to the Justinian Codes). The idea that murder is wrong is a Natural Law. That murder is homicide with malice aforethought is English Common Law. The basis of common law is English culture, which includes the Bible, but also includes other aspects. The adverb "essentially" is redundant because it means the same thing as "basis". The basis of something is its essence. Because of the pagan Roman and Brit origins of common law it may be more correct to say "In 1637, American murder laws followed English common law, which was heavily influenced by Christianity." Christian thought from early church doctors found its way into the common law as well; it was not exclusively biblical. Another good source in the public domain is "The Common Law" by Oliver Wendell Holmes, which is here. The Chief Justice references Roman Law origins of Common Law concepts. Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I get the text of a U.S. state law from 1933?

I am looking for chapter 767 from the 1933 statutes of California. Is there an online service that would have this, that someone with access could get it from, or would something this old not be digitized, and thus I'd be better off trying to get it through interlibrary loan? Thank you; and apologies if this is a bad place to ask. --NE2 07:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're in California, your best best is to visit your local public law library. Most counties have one, usually located near the most central courthouse. -- TJRC (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The chapters are passed bills and published each year, and these chapters might amend sections of the California codes, so chapter 767 varies from year to year. The stuff since 1993 is provided by California at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html Lexisnexis and Westlaw only appear to have chapters back to 1987. I think you'll have to find the bound volumes in a law library somewhere. Amazingly, Google Books has some of these, but they're hard to get at. You have to search for the book "Statutes of California and Digests of Measures". It says there are 43 editions, but it won't let you see all of them (at least it returns an error for me), and some seem to be duplicates. If you do an advanced search, you can get the years you want. They have 1938 and 1916, but seem to be missing all the years between. For what it's worth, Deering's annotated code shows this section in the history of highway statutes, so it probably had something to do with that. Good luck. Cool Hand Luke 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to keep this in mind: Google books seems to have a scattershot of all sorts of session laws. But 1933 probably would not have been useful anyway. Compare the pre-1923 (public domain) 1916 edition, which you can read front-to-back on Google, with the 1938 edition, which is absurdly excerpted (considering these laws are probably also public domain. Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Last note: it looks like most U.S. law schools have these California statue session laws on microfiche, if not hard copy. That's where I would go if you're not in California. Cool Hand Luke 08:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a highway law that almost doubled the size of the state highway system; in 1935 the former and existing routes were all written out in one part of the code for the first time, so I'd need this specific law to confirm what was added in 1933. I've found earlier and later stuff in Google Books but the 1933 edition has "no preview available". Would a law school allow me to just walk into the library and make photocopies? I'll also try Wikipedians in California that are interested in roads; one of them may be able to help. --NE2 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the final House versions online here. Just click on the pull down menu under Histories and indexes to 1933 and you can see what the House passed that year. California does have a few public law libraries, if you ask the librarians, they can help you find the statute on microfiche. You may also ask your California state rep or senator to get the information for you. When you ask a question about the law from your elected official, they might do the research for you for free. I got my US Senator's office to do some legal research for me.
All statutes are in the public domain. There was a federal court case in Texas that settled the matter when the ALI proposed statutes which the legislature adopted verbatim. A disgruntled citizen published the statutes online when he was forced to go to the library and the ALI sued for copyright infringement. The Fed said that once it is adopted by the state, it becomes public record. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That was rather blind of me! The statutes are there too, problem solved! Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow; thank you. Problem in fact solved. --NE2 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Appellate court

I just cleaned up a hornet's nest of disambiguation pages and redirects by starting a stub article on Appellate court, which needs to get built up a lot quickly. Help greatly desired! Cheers! bd2412 T 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AR1

Hello WP:Law. If you like to create articles, might I suggest a trip over to our list of politics/law articles requested for more than a year? There's a rather lengthy backlog to be cleared in this subject area. Best, sh¤y 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is as bad now 3 months later, but it wont be long before a new update comes and there will be a whole bunch of new law articles :(. As I mentioned in the other wikiprojects, if anyone feels like up to it, do have a look at the list and see if there is anything you can do :). Cheers!.Calaka (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CFATS article

I'm a member of WP:CHEMISTRY, and I created a stub on the new Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. This is very important legislation for the chemistry community, since it requires thousands of US chemical plants and colleges to keep additional records of certain chemicals. However, the legal aspects and the wider context are a bit beyond me, I have to admit, and I'd appreciate it if people here could (a) add appropriate links (including "see also") from higher level articles and (b) expand the article as you see fit. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS

Hi folks, I'm not part of this project, but I'm working on my first article about a law (ok, two laws), and am looking for advice. I was curious if there are good sources for stuff that goes in infoboxes for laws, specifically the stuff that goes in Citation and Codification sections. For the first act, I got this: "32 Stat. at L. 1222, chap. 1012, § 39, sec. 32", does it make sense? I don't know what Stat, L, or that funny "s"-type thing mean. Who's got the help I need? Murderbike (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick translation: "32 Stat. at L. 1222" ==> "volume 32 of Statutes at Large, page 122," which should get you where you want to go. The rest is probably extra, but: "chap. 1012" ==> "chapter 1012". The "§" character means "section," so "§ 39, sec. 32" doesn't make a lot of sense, it means "section 39, section 32." It might mean something like section 39 of the enacted statute, and that statute either amends section 32 of some other law, or adds a number of new sections, one of which is section 32. But without looking at the statute in question, that's just a guess. Doing some googling, I'm guessing you're looking at some immigration law from about 100 years ago. -- TJRC (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's something that sometimes gets referred to as the Anarchist Exclusion Act. The funny thing, is that all that code I got right from the page of a source outlining the act, and the section 32 part was right in front of the part I'm quoting. Murderbike (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And I just found out the other one is sometimes referred to as the "Immigration act of October 16, 1918". Is there a way to find out the statute and sections and all that for that? Murderbike (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The "section 32" is from your source, but is not from the statute. It should not be included in the reference.
    The "section 39" is the specific section of the Act from which the quote is taken. The section, therefore, is just one part of the Act.
    Therefore, this is what the citation should look like: Anarchist Exclusion Act, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. 1222. (Look at the wikicode to see how to manipulate the USStat template.) If you are specifically citing that one section, it should read: Anarchist Exclusion Act, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. 1222, § 39.
    —Markles 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The statute begins at 32 STAT 1213, page 1213 of the the 32nd volume of the Statutes at Large. The act has 39 sections, and I believe you are looking for the last section. The way you would cite this particular section is:
  • An Act To regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States, Pub L. No. 57-162 §39, 32 STAT 1213, 1222 (1903).
The name of the act is in italics or underlined. There are two citations here: the public laws citation and the statutes at large citation. The citation reads "Act name" Public law number 162 of the 57th Congress section 39; (may also be found) volume 32 of the statutes at large with the act beginning on page 1213 and the specific section on page 1222; the act was passed in 1903. This is according to the Bluebook uniform system of legal citation. If you would like to learn about the basics of legal citation, go to this article.
I have posted a jpeg image of the statute here. Because section 32 is rather short, I will quote it for you and provide the citation: "That the Commissioner-General of Immigration, under the direction or with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasurey, shall prescribe rules for the entry and inspection of aliens along the borders of Canada and Mexico, so as not to unnecessarily delay, impede, or annoy passengers in ordinary travel between the United States and said countries, and shall have power to enter into contracts with foreign transportation lines for the same purpose." An Act To regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States, 32 STAT 1213, 1221 (1903). The caption of the section states: "Entries of aliens by railroads", which means that the section was intended for passengers who travel between countries by rail. Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I went and looked at the statutes at the library, and turns out it's actually sections 38-39 that are the pertinent ones. Thanks for the clarification! Murderbike (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of county courts in England and Wales - new article

If anybody fancies looking at List of county courts in England and Wales and correcting/improving it, feel free. Does anybody have more photographs that can be added to it? Does anyone know when Nelson County Court opened, or where I might find out? I've found quite a few on the Geograph website and copied them to Commons, but more would be welcome. I'm also working on a list of the former county courts, so photographs of former county court buildings would be good too. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 11:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: see List of former county courts in Wales; the English list will take a little longer. Any more photos of current or former county courts in England or Wales? BencherliteTalk 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I can provide a photo of my local CC, which is Trowbridge, when I next go there? I'll upload it to Commons & leave a link here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Here it is: Image:TrowbridgeCountyCourt.jpg. Any good? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Anyone else near a court? BencherliteTalk 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New York laws from the 1950s

You guys were very helpful with California; now I'm trying to find full text/scans of laws from New York, including 1955 chapter 748. Does anyone happen to know of a way to find this? Thank you. --NE2 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Drug Abuse Act

I wrote a little about this on the War on Drugs discussion page, but I thought you guys might be able to give me a clearer answer. In light of the United States Sentencing Commission retroactively reducing some crack cocaine sentences, I was looking for some mention of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and found none on Wikipedia. Not to be clichéd, but WTF mates? Lizz612 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You may find a summary of the act here. The Thomas website is excellent for finding summaries on obscure acts. The act gained more significance after Kimbrough v. United States, but even that article needs to be written. The court was looking specifically at subsection 1007(a) of that act, which is the only part of that very long act that had any bearing on the reducing of some crack cocaine sentences. That was because subsection 1007(a) added subsection (e) to the US Code 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553, imposition of sentences. The act also affected other parts of the US Code that had very little to do with Monday's court decision. So the question is "wtf mates?" I am sorry that there is no article for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. There is also no article for the State Comprehensive Mental Health Services Plan Act of 1985 also passed that same year. The SCMHSPA of 1985 combined a host of other acts including: Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Services Research Act of 1986, Drug Exports Amendments Act of 1986, Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1986, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality Act of 1986, and finally the State Comprehensive Mental Health Services Plan Act of 1986. The SCMHSPA had a signigicant impact on the health care systems of all 50 states. I am sorry that there is no article on the SCMHSPA of 1985. wtf indeed. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperium needs better cites

Imperium "incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913." However, it has no in-line cites and apparently no other sources, although edits have been made to this article by various authors over several years. I have no expertise in this area myself. Can anyone add good cites to this article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't in the scope of wikiproject law. I posted a response on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome page. Please note that this article did not recieve an assessment according to its importance. May I suggest that it be given a rating of low or none. A collaboration of 4 wikiprojects to improve the article may not happen. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the American Bar Association

I've been formatting the List of Presidents of the American Bar Association article, and I've noticed quite a few gaps in its coverage. I've got JSTOR access, but just not to many legal journals; I was wondering if someone could look at this paper or some early editions of the American Bar Association Journal to gather a list of early presidents. A barnstar for anyone who can help! Thanks in advance. CloudNine (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got conflicting sources that each say Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and Ramsey Clark were President of the ABA from 1964-1965. Can anyone shed somelight on this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Powell was president during 1964 and 1965 according to the ABA. A search of the ABA for Clark provided nothing. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Soering v. United Kingdom

Editors are discussing deleting this case from Wikipedia. A claim has been made that it is non-notable. I'm a bit confused about what then constitutes notability for law cases on Wikipedia. Are there specific guidelines? Could someone explain to me how this could possibly be considered non-notable? Not even worthy of elaboration, simply "non-notable" as if it be obvious to all that the case doesn't deserve band width. Clue me in, if you can. I note many law articles (US Supreme Court cases) requiring a lot of attention, but fear to tred in the dark. Thanks! --Amaltheus (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not a lawyer, but I've done a few years of civil rights research for a lawyer. I vaguely remember the Soering case, as I lived in North Carolina at the time. But I don't really remember it, and had pretty much to go on using various on-line search engines about the case, so I could be completely wrong about the notability. It looks like a major court decision, though, from reviewing news sources and scholarly sources. And the extradition issue rings a dim bell. I would appreciate input from an experienced legal editor about what constitutes notability for law cases on Wikipedia. It seems a bit of a waste of time to write an article then delete it or debate deleting it rather than improving it. --Amaltheus (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The expansion and huge response makes the nomination mute. I left a comment on the nominator's talk page suggesting greater care and investigation for nominating articles in the future. This case is sometimes cited as a basis for 8th amendment challenges to lengthy confinement by deathrow inmates and has been mentioned in 8th and 9th circuit opinions a few times. Justice Breyer has cited it in Knight v. Florida 528 U.S. 990 in a dissent. Knight v. Florida was a memo denying certiorari for a challenge to lengthy confinement prior to execution. Breyer would grant certiorari in such cases. While Knight would not be cited in and of itself, it shows that that the Supreme Court Justice has noted the case. More importantly, 347 law review articles have cited the case on various human rights and death penalty topics. The legal citation for the case is "Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)(1989". It was in the brief for petitioner in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which can be found here. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and to the editor who rewrote it. 347 law review articles? I'll assume my initial wow! this case is incredibly notable! what's going on here! was correct. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear and present danger

This article is also crying out to be completely rewritten or graciously put to death. Is there a national priorities list of Wiki legal article superfund sites or some such? I can add details from the literature, but I can't really do a total perspective on an article as was done in the rewrite of Soering and as is needed here. I'm not a legal scholar, in addition to not being a lawyer. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the "To Do" list on the project page. I also assessed it as "mid" importance and "start" class, and added it to the First Amendment category. First Amendment is an upper level law class that is not part of the core curriculum. It is of interest to Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, and Copyright scholars particularly, but some American attorneys do not have it as part of their curriculum. I find it odd that the tag claims that there are no references when it names cases (albiet without citation). Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the page to the do list, and thanks for the information that First Ammendment law is specialized. I've only worked with Civil Rights and Constitutional Law lawyers and assumed any lawyer could spit out a good outline on any case just from reading it, having watched good lawyers do just that, without realizing it was lawyers working within their area of specialization. I will add a few citations as I get time and remove the tag until someone finds time for a good rewrite. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An article on Superior Orders

Wikipedia's missing an article on Superior Orders. There is an article on Nuremberg Defense, but it doesn't cover the issue before and after Nuremberg. I have quite a bit of research on the subject, but am pretty much a Wiki-noob. Could someone help me out with this one? Thanks.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

did you check vicarious liability, agency (law), and related articles? Currently, wikipedia articles encompass only a couple of chapters from the Restatement Third of Agency. The "Nuremberg Defense" is essentially one of agency applied to international law. There is also command responsibility and other international criminal law articles. Feel free to edit. Quite a bit of research can only help legal articles in drastic need of correction, expansion and citation. Thanks! Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The nature of this defense against criminal liability doesn't leave it as a question of agency, because agency arises only in cases of civil matters; an agent committing a wrong is held liable, except that in the case of the army it isn't treated as a principal-agent relationship due to the greater coercion that might arise out of being in the armed forces. Also, Command Responsibility pins liability upon the superior, while the defense in its current state merely reduces liability upon the doer of an act. Given what I've said, should I write a new article, then?--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe superior orders? Dcoetzee 09:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Already started. Superior Orders.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Harvard Law Review article reference is not correct. There is no anonymous article entitled "The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior" in that volume or any volume of the HLR according to Heinonline. Respondeat superior is part of agency law. Agency law encompasses much more It is different from the superior orders defense in the way that it is treated. In superior orders and respondeat superior, the agent places responsibility on the superior or sovereign. respondeat superior is a complete defense, superior orders is not a complete defense or is no defense. Superior orders is a mitigating factor that shifts blame partially but not completely away from the defendant, although the defendant invokes the defense believing that it behaves as other excuse defenses. Like other excuse defenses, superior orders does not seek to negate an element of the crime. Superior orders also takes on other criminal law theories involving mental culpability such as mistake as to fact, mistake as to justification etc. The first appearance of the superior orders defense in American law is in Little v. Barreme 2 Cranch 170, 6 U.S. 170 (1804). American ships seized a Danish ship on suspicion of trading with French ports during a French-American conflict. There was an act of Congress and Presidential decree authorizing the seizure of vessels operated by US citizens who traded in French ports. The captain of the Danish ship was believed to be an American and on probable cause, the ship, its crew and cargo were seized. It was later discovered that the goods on board were neutral of the conflict. The Supreme Court, Justice Marshal held that although the American ships were justified at detaining the ship for investigation, they did so at their own peril if the goods later turned out to be neutral. The Court ordered damages to be paid, overturning the district court's opinion. The net effect was that the superior orders doctrine is not available to private citizens acting under authority of the president during wartime, but to military personnel only. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"There is no anonymous article entitled 'The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior' in that volume or any volume of the HLR according to Heinonline." Entertain the possibility that Heinonline may have a hole or two. JSTOR certainly shows that the article exists. -- TJRC (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
@Legis Nuntius - The HLR article exists, according to JSTOR. Don't know whether Heionline or JSTOR are wrong. Will look up the hard copy tomorrow and confirm. Further, there have been many occasions (esp. War Trials after the first World War) where it was treated as a complete defence. Given all of this, I must admit that I do not know much of the US position on the situation - it's being looked at a little too much from an International Law perspective, currently. I'll work on the US angle and write something out - currently have examinations, hence am a little busy. Just wait it out for a bit, and I should have the entire page up soon. It is only fair that the positions in other jurisdictions be considered, which is what I'm looking at. Thanks for the update on the US position, though.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is now about the Superior Orders article, rather than about whether such an article should be created, I suggest that it move to Talk:Superior Orders.TJRC (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Other to do cases

There are a couple of cases missing from Wikipedia. I'm not certain about their priority for this project and their suitability as stand-alone general encyclopedia articles, though imo they should have articles. But I hesitate to start case law articles or do more than add references. No, it's not hesitation, I can't read case law and write up a good outline of a case.

It seems these two cases should have articles. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for ease of reference, in case anyone wants to read the cases:
TJRC (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to the cases. I will do that next time I post a case. --Amaltheus (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Medical advice

I've just created a new page, Medical advice, which I modeled after the Legal advice page. As I couldn't find any good sources, I wanted to invite any interested parties from this WikiProject to take a look at it. Perhaps one of you will have ideas about how to improve it.

My basic goal for the page is to differentiate between professional medical advice ("Looks like strep throat: have an antibiotic") and nonprofessional medical information (from "You'll feel better if you have some chicken soup" to "Here's the complex molecular structure of the latest cancer drug,"). Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination law needs work

Does anyone have time to take a look at Anti-discrimination law? This could be a good overview article, but it's currently not much. Thanks, --Alynna (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posted to WikiProject Discrimination)

J.D. PNOV

There are issues with the J.D. article which are difficult to resolve because of some POV-pushers insisting that all reference to the J.D. as a graduate or doctorate degree be completely removed. It has mysteriously become quite a contentious issue. Please join the discussion and the effort to resolve this issue. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eolas

The Eolas article concerns a very important court decision involving Berners Lee and Microsoft, concerning patents and the internet. It needs attention from some kind of umbrella project. Does the law project have a place for articles concerning important court actions / decisions? MaxEnt (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual court decisions get their own article such as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., which has a relatively good format and United States v. Carroll Towing Co., which needs improvement. The case mentioned in the Eolas page is Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 399 F.3d 1325 (2005), someone interested and knowledgeable in patent law may be better suited to sorting it out and determining its significance to patent law. From a reading of the case, Microsoft brought two arguments before the Federal Circuit Court: First that software cannot constitute a "component" of a patented invention, and Second no "components" were supplied from the United States because the copies of Windows made from the master disks were made abroad. The Circuit Court rejected both arguments. Interestingly, Microsoft made the same arguments in a suit with AT & T, to which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft v. AT&T 127 S.Ct. 1746 (2007). The Supreme Court agreed with Microsoft on the second issue only, indirectly overruling the holding in Eolas Tech v. Microsoft. I believe that the legal significance of the Eolas case may have been eclipsed by the Supreme Court ruling, although it may have had social and economic significance. Again, someone more knowledgeable of patent infringements may be better suited to evaluating these cases. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the legal outcome, at the time this was quite the significant case within the software industry, with Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C both weighing in against the Eolas patent as summarized here. In addition to cleaning up the legal content at the main Eolas page, it would be nice to also have a purely legal analysis at Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. as you suggest. I don't feel qualified to do justice to such a page, nor would it cover the full scope of the Eolas litigation, which also involved challenges at the level of the patent office. It still strikes me that the law project would be well served to create a sub-project devoted to significant court actions, covering also the broader legal context that a main article such as Eolas would touch upon. I can imagine that editors especially strong on case law could some strong contributions in this area. - MaxEnt (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD of an alleged lawyer's organization

As discussed above, I have finally nominated Franco-Indian_Lawyers_Association. The organization doesn't appear to really exist, looks like the article was created to advertise a proposed organization.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


R v Collins

I've written up this case because it set out the meaning of "enters as a trespasser" in the English law of burglary. I'd be glad if anyone feels like checking it over. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Treaty of Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli page has gone through some major revisions as of late. Could people weigh in on the issue if the controversy section should be expanded (I say no, because it will just create feuding about "POV balance") and re-examine the page. If you could update on any legal matters, such as one President disregarding a treaty signed by another President, and implications of that. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Law in Star Trek

Article has been nominated for deletion, comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek (second nomination). Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Need vandalism help

Someone has vandalized eighth amendment. It was done over a number of edits and I couldn't figure out how to fix it.

12.159.138.194 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mugging

This article is a mess, and I have set out some proposals here. Please feel free to comment. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer-review notice

Since Tax protester constitutional arguments involves a lot of U.S. law, I thought I would post this request. I think we're close to submitting for Featured Article status. If possible, please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

co-ownership DAB

Greetings from the project's newest member! I thought I'd start my contributions on WP:Law by pissing everybody off. I boldly transformed co-ownership from being a redirect to Concurrent estate to a DAB-page. The reason why is that the concept of co-ownership hardly is unique for common law. I know that there are yet no articles on co-ownership in other legal codes, but since I'm also a member of WP:FOOTY I thought I'd write an article on co-ownership in sports. Browsing the articles on basic legal concepts on wiki, I notice that almost all articles are on the concepts within the common law system. What's the plan on dealing with the same concepts in other legal codes? Should they have their own articles or should they be incorporated in the already existing (common law) articles. The problem with the first alternative is that a lot of existing articles would have to be moved from concept XXX to concept XXX (common law) and a lot of DAB-pages would have to be set up. The problems with the other alternative would be that articles would be very long, possibly unclear and probably hard to write, especially if we'd want to cover all legal codes (not to mention that all the common law templates would be surplus). I prefer the first alternative, as you can see on co-ownership. Any thoughts? Sebisthlm (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New article: Criminal Damage in English law

I'd be glad if anyone's interested in giving this the once-over. As far as I know the law is up to date but a second pair of eyes would be welcome. It may be that it should be merged at some stage into criminal damage, but that article isn't currently written in a legal style and I thought it better to get it up & running before discussing merger. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent job and so I have given it an A class rating. There is one red link at the bottom of the page. You may wish to expand the history and origin of the law i.e. how it was treated before the 1971 act. In a couple weeks, after some time for any possible revision, we should nominate it for GA status. I'm not sure how to rate the importance of the article. If the offence is well known by the general public, then it should be rated as "high" importance. Cheers! Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Have now written a "common law" section and merged Malicious Damage Act 1861 into the article. Since there has been no reaction to merging Criminal Damage Act 1971 (which is now largely a duplication), I propose to do that shortly. As to its importance, it is an offence commonly charged in magistrates' courts (second only to shoplifting, if I remember correctly), perhaps it should be "High".--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2 requests

I have a couple of requests:

  • create a new category:discovery (law). I have already put some articles in it.
  • create a sub-project, WikiProject U.S. state law.

I hope the first suggestion is non-controversial. The second suggestion is intended as a trial balloon. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Constitution of Belarus

Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

James William McGhee

Anyone have an opinion on this person and his court case. The article is up for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Diligence

"Diligence" is used in several legal terms, so I'm posting this note here. "Diligence" is now a redirect to "Quick"; history page is new, so maybe the original was moved and a new redirect page created ... I'm a bit new, so I'm not sure how to track it down or make it like it used to be; gave it a try and then reverted myself. Thought someone here would know the best way. Notuncurious (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, it was never specifically a legal article. The original was moved to Wiktionary and it would be better to recreate it as "Diligence in law" or something like that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Or have Diligence be a DAB page with separate pages for the various uses. Avruch T 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal for a DAB page. According to Black's Law dictionary 8th edition, the term diligence has two senses. "1. A continual effort to accomplish something. 2. Care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation." On the talk page of due diligence, there was a proposal for merging duty of care with the DD article. This touches on combining the first and second meanings of diligence. Diligence also has three other meanings, the first in patent law, and the others in Scotts Law. I would be in favor of transforming diligence into a disambiguation page with redirects to existing articles, and creating a few stubs for such articles as "diligence (Scotts Law)" and the like. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This sounds fine with me. I had already created a Diligence (Scots law) page to get around the problem (and edited several Scotland-related articles to use it) ... I put WikiProject Law on the talk page (also on the talk pages of several other Scots law related articles); don't know if you want the law-stub on the article page, but feel free. (And by the way, I created several of these because I needed a working definition, not because I have any expertise at correct interpretation.) Notuncurious (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with the gist of a Supreme Court case?

I'm working on an article about the yacht USS Wadena (SP-158) that was, apparently, at the center of U.S. Supreme Court case, Levinson v. United States 258 U.S. 198 (1922). Can anyone provide a quick summary what was decided? Legalese makes my head hurt... ;) Thanks in advance — Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The yacht, previously having been used by the Navy in WW I, was auctioned off after the war ended. Levinson and Johnson both bid on it. Johnson bid higher, but his bid got lost. The Navy subsequently sold and delivered title to the yacht to Levinson. Johnson sued, and the Navy joined in the suit as a stakeholder, supporting Johnson's claim. The District Court (the lowest level court) ruled in favor of Levinson. The Court of Appeals threw the government out of the suit, saying it wasn't really a party to the controversy; and reversed the district court, awarding the yacht to Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed again, saying the district court had it right, on both counts: it's okay for the Navy to be in the suit, but Levinson gets the boat. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New article - RIDDOR

Any chance of an assessment? An article about the UK regs for workplace safety and reporting is at RIDDOR. Don't think anyone had done much law before helping with this article. Any mistakes? Victuallers (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Duty to rescue

Duty to rescue reads like an article that someone wrote from their somewhat mistaken memory about common law and US law: not only is it completely uncited and confuses civil, criminal, and common law, but it's also US-centric and, from what I remember from law school, completely wrong about civil liability in the US. I'm gonna work on the page, but I'd appreciate any help I can get. Travisl (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to rename the article as "No duty to rescue," at least in the case of American law. I agree that the person who wrote this article has a mistaken perception of law. The case in first year torts used to illustrate that nonfeasance does not create liability is Yania v. Bigan 155 A.2d 343 (PA 1959). That's the one where one guy actually enticed the other to jump into some water, knew of its danger, and watched him die. The Conlaw case that establishes that Police etc. only hold a duty to the general public and not to individuals is Castle Rock v. Gonzales. A wife repeatedly called police to save her children who were being murdered by her husband when she already had a restraining order against him. Nonfeasance does create liability when a statute applies such as the duty to report child abuse in most US jurisdictions. Lord Blackstone may have written about the man watching another drown while standing next to a rope. If so, there is no liability for nonfeasance at common law. I do believe that the term nonfeasance is the one used to describe the "no duty to rescue" rule. I'll try to help where I can. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
LegisNuntius: I agree that the article is a little off, but I think it's okay to call the article "duty to rescue" as long as the article is clear that the "duty" only arises in limited circumstances. I mean, duties are limited and relational in most cases - even the duty not to negligently injure one another, at least under the Cardozo/majority rule. Take the "duty to disclose" - it only arises in some circumstances - when imposed by statute (sales of realty, issuers of securities (limited duty to disclose or abstain from trading), implied or express in contract, or to prevent fraudulent misrepresentation. Still you wouldn't call the article that explains when the scope of this duty - when it does or doesn't exist - "no duty to disclose." You'd call "duty to disclose" and then say, "there is no universal duty to disclose; it's only imposed when certain thresholds are crossed." This article gives a different impression about the duty than may really be the case, and the content needs to be fixed, but not the name. Agree? Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, LN. I've taken my first crack at fixing it, but I'm not satisfied with the quality of many of my sources. It's better than it was, even though I've peppered it with all sorts of notes (rightfully) questioning the facts I state. I agree with NCL that the article title shouldn't be changed, particularly in the light of the existence of the duty in some European nations. Travisl (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tort law

I'd like to ask my fellow WP:Law editors to take a look at the article on torts and the accompanying discussion page. I have some proposed changes to the introduction of the article, which is high-importance, but poorly-assembled. A vandal cop disagrees with my edits to the introduction and thinks it best to revert them. If you see any merit in my suggested changes, or they inspire you to improve the introduction to the article yourself in any way, please have at it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: the disagreement between Enigmaman and myself has been solved, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't weigh in on this important article! Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR notice for United States Bill of Rights

United States Bill of Rights has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be worth someone's while to take a look at Bad Check Restitution Program

Specifically the Legal section. John Nevard (talk) 04:23, 27 March 20


Securities fraud

Experienced editors are needed to flesh out this article. Please help. It should be at least ten times as long and far more substantive.--Bassettcat (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I go any further, I want to make sure that........

I happened on Ngan v R and shuddered at the legalese style used in the article. Not encyclopedic at all. Very informative, but bordering on a text dump IMMHO. So I started to edit it, but only got the two opening pars done when the thought crossed my mind that someone/somewhere might have agreed to present these articles in this fashion, and I was wasting my time. Anyone know? I changed the opening pars from

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen [2007] NZSC 105 is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, it was handed down on the 13th of December 2007.[1] It considered the admissability of evidence of a crime that was discovered incidentally to an inventory search of a car accident. The court considered the scope and application of s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ. The judgement was unaminous with the reasons of Elias CJ, Blanchard and Anderson JJ given by Blanchard J.[2] Tipping J gave his own concurring judgement,[3] Mcgrath J agreed with the result but employed a different line of reasoning.[4]

to

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on December 13 2007.[5] The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
Sitting on the bench were Chief Justice Sian Elias, and Justices Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath and Noel Anderson. The judgement was unanimous with the reasons of Justices Elias, Blanchard and Anderson given by Justice Blanchard.[6] Justice Tipping gave his own concurring judgement,[7] and Justice Mcgrath agreed with the result but employed a different line of reasoning.[8]

OK. Should I carry on? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tks. Have moved it to Wiki Project Law talk. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Second one seems preferable to me - can't see why the first would have been the result of any conversation about style or readability. Avruch T 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea to keep the citation. We put it in just about every court case. It would be required if anyone were to write a paper using the case. It also identifies the volume and page number in the reporter series so that one could find the case in a library [2007] NZSC 105. You may want to change the judgement sentences to active voice i.e. "Justice Blanchard gave an opinion for an unanimous court in which justices....joined." Second one is much better, it uses complete sentences as well. Legis Nuntius (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article criteria for articles about appeal decisions

I've raised this here. Briefly, for many of these articles, there is only one source- the official Law Report. This may make an article fail for lacking "multiple independent sources". Comments there are welcome. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Book Search Lawsuit

I'm considering starting an article on the Google Book search legal activity. I was surprised to find that the Google Book Search page had only one reference to a lawsuit and that was in a German court. This lawsuit will be critical to anything that touches copyright--that certainly includes all of us (on wikipedia). Any suggestions for name, content, or if I've somehow (embarrassingly) missed an already present article, would be appreciated.LH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyons

Is anyone as shocked as I am that we do not have an article on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)? Did we before? Was it deleted? Or just never created? I can't believe it's not here it's in just about every con law book... am I missing something? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on Case law

I'm not versed in legal issues, but I came across the case law article and it seems to have multiple problems. I can't see where there is a list of law-related articles for cleanup, so I thought I'd just drop a note here so perhaps interested parties could work on it?? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and added under cleanup in the to do list. Perhaps one of the other headings would be appropriate, but at least cleanup is needed. This is especially true since case law is a fundamental aspect of most, if not all, English speaking jurisdications. Also, strangely enough, there is no Project: Law tag in the discussion of the subject. I'll add that as well.IMHO (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

English law proposal

Francium12 has proposed a WikiProject devoted to English law here, if anyone is interested in showing support for the proposal. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is little support for a separate project, and a Task Force has been mooted here. Accordingly, if anyone is interested in working on this (and there is plenty of work to be done), please signify interest below:

Request for comment

There is a request for comment at Category talk:American criminals#What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category? which may interest members of this project. Aleta Sing 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and vexatious litigants

Editors that have an interest in both law and Wikipedia's policies might want to look at a developing proposal (possible future policy) at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing. It appears to be an attempt to create a vexatious litigation clause for Wikipedia. The overall goal of this draft seems to be to give ArbCom a way to deal with "content disputes" of the sort where variations on a favorite idea are added by a problem editor, removed by someone else, and (re-)discussed endlessly, until all the good editors have been driven away by the wastefully repetitive discussions and the pet theory can be promoted without opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable

This (lonely) article could use any help it can get. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the administrative law standard of "arbitrary and capricious", but I've never heard of "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable". Is that something specific to New York (the state cited in the article)? Chicken Wing (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Category class

As I noted at Template talk:WikiProject Law, I added a Category-class to the template. There are a number of articles already tagged with it but they were still showing up as unassessed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

National instrument

I've created a disambiguation page at national instrument. There appears to be a legal sense of the term, but I can't quite figure out what it is by googling. Can somebody help? Thanks Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the term does not exist in Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition. Of the 24 different types of instruments listed in that source, the closest is public instrument, which is itself a synonym for public writing, "The written acts or records of a government (or its constituent units) that are not constitutionally or statutorily protected from disclosure." Treaties are instruments, but the term would be redundant because treaties are by definition agreements between 2 or more states, and therefore always national. A search for the term over every American federal court case yields 22 hits. Besides the federal litigation for the company, a couple of courts have used those words. Two Supreme Court cases from 1824 and 1917 involving banks and interstate commerce, and another from 1973 involving a standardized test for teachers used by the Department of Education. In each, the term is not used exactly the same based on context, but it is used as a descriptor for banks, The National Bank, and tests used to regulate teachers. This must be why it has not appeared in a google search. It is not a legal term. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Drug Policy

Should we make Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy a sub-project of this one? Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

not a sub-project but possibly a "related project." Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to Chin Chill-A's banning, I've taken over the brunt of the administration of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy. It's new, but we've got a lot done. We're definitely in need of some good legal minds, though, as there's a lot of overlap between policy and legality. If any of the members here feel that they might be able to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy and the more legal/legislative pages within it, please consider this a formal invitation and thanks in advance. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Availiable at http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments-supreme-07.html
  2. ^ paras. 1-38.
  3. ^ paras. 39-69
  4. ^ paras. 70-125
  5. ^ Availiable at http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments-supreme-07.html
  6. ^ paras. 1-38.
  7. ^ paras. 39-69
  8. ^ paras. 70-125
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_6"