Deletion of Skilling v. United States

Comment: every modern SCOTUS opinion, at least, is most certainly the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, from news to academic journals to textbooks.  This is particularly true given that SCOTUS has discretion to hear cases, so it only chooses those that pose a novel issue of law or are the subject of split decisions by lower courts.  It appears that the nom has a history of starting meritless AFDs based on his talk page and contribution history, and I also find it hard to believe that he followed  in this particular instance; given who it involved, this case was far from obscure even to mainstream/lay media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: All of the sources listed by T. Canens were published on June 24, 2010. Coverage is , and evidence of on-going coverage is required to meet notability requirements
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)