lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

message: The article mentions that the hard look doctrine established in this case was expanded upon in State Farm v Campbell. I'm not familiar enough with that case to feel comfortable making an edit, but I suspect it should instead say Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n v State Farm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Vehicles_Manufacturers_Ass%27n_v._State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Co.), which is a very influential admin law case that expanded upon hard look doctrine and cited this case. 216.165.95.177 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong State Farm Mentioned?
Talk:Cohen v. California

message: I've added Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to the Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: This article only had 6 references, which was not nearly enough.  The references were also mainly citing the government record of the case, so it did not provide more than one view of the case.AstroFan2017 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, AstroFan2017. I've placed a template () at the top of the article which indicates that it needs more secondary sources. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the template. Per WP:MOSLAW, primary sources are authorized, and in some manners preferred for legal articles. GregJackP Boomer!  19:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Does https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/11/the-f-bomb/ qualify as a secondary source? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: I'm going to start on a major revision of this article, including formatting the article according to WP:SCOTUS, revising the references to allow pinpoint references, and expanding. I'll probably change the reference system to Bluebook, if there are objections, please let me know, but the current system cites to the entire work instead of the point in the work that supports the text in the article. GregJackP Boomer!  19:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising
Talk:Reed v. Reed

message: Earlier this said that this was the first case ruling that the Fourteenth applies to women. This is patently false. Women were equally protected (and not) from racial discrimination, the primary use of the Fourteenth up to this time. Women were not somehow foreign to the Fourteenth. However, it IS the first time SCOTUS rules that equal protection means that governmental action cannot give different treatment under law (or color of law) based on legal sex. 
Thus I changed the ridiculously misleading wording about this being "the first case ruling that the Fourteenth applies to women" to something much more accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: I cannot find the the case which this entire entry is all about, a docket number would help. 404 is not the docket number and because of it's Apache server error coincidence, some may be lead to believe it is a fictional court case.Dirtclustit (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After following the links used to cite this court case, it seems that Westlaw is possible the only database with verifiable records. Dirtclustit (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Those are exactly the references I am speaking of Bmclaughlin9, if you have a subscription to Westlaw, which is a database that has all recorded rulings and only actual, legitimate, recognized United States Federal and State Courts you will immediately understand why non-reputable online databases are like citing a tabloid as a reference to assertions of facts in an article. If you do not have a subscription any University with a Law School will have a Law Library which anyone can go to and research cases with actual, legitimate docket numbers and be 100% sure the info obtained is not in any way fabricated.Dirtclustit (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: So there must be some law about being able to post docket numbers for free then I take it? Otherwise, if they are a legitimate reference source, why not list key information so the that is no reasonable doubt if a person wishes to verify the source? I will leave this be for now, in fact I should apologize for wasting your time as this is likely a point I should be bringing up elsewhere in the wiki forum. If it isn't obvious, I am new here. Thanks for your input, I am sure there is something simple that is just a matter of me not seeing itDirtclustit (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Court Rulings
Talk:Wisconsin v. Yoder

message: Why is this saying it to too heavily relying on "primary sources"? I am former Amish and this case affected me personally, but what improvements are needed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with relying on primary sources?

message: In other Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia, it says the ruling for the case (like 9-0).  Why it doesn’t say that for this case? 2600:8804:B8F:3700:5928:1ADF:B14B:59D6 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the ruling?
Talk:Allied Universal

message: This article looks like it was taken right off the allied website...
*Actually, the timeline was lifted directly from the employee handbook.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: According to a news release from AlliedUniversal dated August 1, 2016,  AlliedBarton Security Services and Universal Services of America merged to form Allied Universal. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-allied-universal-officially-launched-to-lead-security-and-facility-services-industries-300306565.html  As a result, I moved the AlliedBarton article to AlliedUniversal.ABQCat (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of AlliedBarton with Universal Services
Talk:Branzburg v. Hayes

message: Episode one of PBS Frontline's "News Wars" covers this case with many of the principles speaking to the history and aftermath of the case. Amitorit 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode one

message: Branzburg has no article about him.  Was he sent to jail for contempt while his case was appealed?  For how long?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contempt
Talk:San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

message: The article fails to discuss the fact San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez was a case of first impression regarding if socio-economic status could be used/regard as a suspect class. Thus, requiring heightened scrutiny.
While the case was about a right to a meaningfully fundamental education the case was also about establishing soci-economic class as a suspect classification. Dwigginsj3 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article remiss in socio-economic classification discussion
Talk:Mathews v. Eldridge

message: This court case was the basis of the NBCNews article: 'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo.
It should be referenced in this article.
Secondary source: https://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite
Primary source: https://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Please reference.  Thank you.
98.194.1.138 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC White Paper Release: 02/05/2013
Talk:Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

message: This article was placed in :Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision without any statement in the infobox or article that I can find showing which prior Supreme Court decision was overruled.  I am therefore provisionally and boldly removing that category until such time as the article provides evidence to support the underlying assertion.  —Geoff Capp (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overruled what?
Talk:National League of Cities v. Usery

message: I rated this case as top importance for three main reasons: 1) the case is central to understanding the progression of federalism in the United States; 2) it is mentioned in virtually every public personnel class, administrative law class, intergovernmental relations class, and most constitutional law classes; 3) the case was argued by Robert Bork vs Rhyne (a former President of the ABA) and Calvin L. Rampton (the sitting governor of Utah at the time). Also, this case is rated as a Top100 case on Oyez.com Frank0051 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Importance for SCOTUS, Mid for Law
Talk:Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

message: I'm really only here because my notes from admin law say that this case was kind of the foundation of the new textualist school (because the APA is a masterpiece of carefully drafted legislation so it makes sense to interpret it strictly) and I wanted more on that. Doesn't look like there's anything on that in here yet, but that could be something to consider adding.  Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation of the New Textualist School
Talk:Parker v. Flook

message: Should "The section says," be changed to "Section 101 says," since it is worded this way in Gottschalk v. Benson. I don't wish to change it at this time since I have not had the time to verify that this quote comes from section 101.
Dyslexicon (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes Section
Talk:Traidenis

message: Duchess of Mazowsze, married Bolesław II, Duke of Mazovia
Rather: Kunigunda (Kunegunda)  married Bolesław II, Duke of Mazovia, becoming Duchess of Mazowsze. Xx236 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dutchess of Masovia - use English names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokyz (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 July 2006
Traidenis was the best Lithuanian monarch ever, some lithuanian historicans say. Kernavė was one of most cleanest capitals in Europe, army very strong--86.100.205.18 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Doctor Gero

message: When 17 and 18 first appers, they talk about Android 15. They just say the name, but still the † shouldn't be used, at least the character exist, just very different from the anime, in the mangá is only a name.
:Not in the Japanese version, so it's just shit the dub made up so they wouldn't have to translate what 17 and 18 were really saying. Takuthehedgehog 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Android 15 

message: :It is never mentioned how Gero became android 20 it is just said that he is Doctor Gero. The whole android 20 section is speculation and fanon. DBZROCKS 13:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  android 20
Talk:Grattan Stadium

message: I propose this article be moved to Odsal Stadium and Grattan Stadium redirected there.  I watched the Challenge Cup semi-final yesterday on the BBC and they consistenly referred to the Odsal Stadium, as did BBC Look North before the match, and BBC Radio Five Live.
I believe there is a Wikipedia precedent for not including the sponsor's name, but to stick with a name that remains constant, regardless of sponsorship changing hands.  See Headingley Stadium, Rugby League Challenge Cup, Super League (Europe), Rugby League Tri-Nations, etc (not Headingley Carnegie Stadium, Powergen Challenge Cup, engage Super League, Gillette Tri-Nations, etc).  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be consistant, stadium articles should be named after what they are best known as; whether that is their actual name or the sponsor's name. The Jungle is no longer named after a sponsor, it now has that name because it fits with the whole 'Tigers' theme.GordyB 12:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support, as I've never heard anyone in the game call it "Grattan Stadium", be they players, managers or commentators.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * What about Galpharm Stadium ? And The Jungle (Wheldon Road) ? it's inconsistent. Tim Fellows 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be consistant, stadium articles should be named after what they are best known as; whether that is their actual name or the sponsor's name. The Jungle is no longer named after a sponsor, it now has that name because it fits with the whole 'Tigers' theme.GordyB 12:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Diamond v. Chakrabarty

message: The article has some POV issues.  For example, it says, "critics were hung up on potential effects".  This is dismissive and unencyclopedic language.  It treats it as a foregone conclusion that the subject matter would be patentable, and even puts "there were no legal grounds to dismiss the claims" in "Why SCOTUS Agreed to Hear the Case" (the Supreme Court could not decide the issue of patentability before even hearing the case).  Another example is, "This has the potential to cause entities to seek the approval of the courts more than follow the rules written by Congress, tipping the power in the government to an unbalanced state." in which the author injects their own tangentially related POV opinion, not backed by any source. Mattflaschen - Talk 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal issues are always contragious. But I was not aware that this case was particularly contagious. Perhaps a separate lemma must be added on "patent controversies". Patenting living matter (from micro-orhanisms to animals of even humans) is definitely contagious: proponents will argue that private parties will not invest in useful(?) research without patents, opponents will question ethics. Rbakels (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems 

message: FYI, I overhauled the article today with the aim of removing a bunch of unsourced, unencyclopedic, duplicative, and/or POV material.  The article still needs more citations and I will try to come back to this soonish and add more, but hopefully my edits have brought this article to a better place than it was before I started.  If anyone else has suggestions for improvement, please feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can add them. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhauled the Article
Talk:Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.

message: This page explains it better http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/judicial-efforts-to-protect-the-expansion-of-the-market-against-assertions-of-local-power/kassel-v-consolidated-freightways-corp/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallgaloot (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Bob Jones University v. United States

message: They lost in the Supreme Court in 1976 and 1983? Same case or different? Admissions or dating? 178.39.157.187 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Different case, 1974 rather than '76, Bob Jones University v. Simon.--John Foxe (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing article
Talk:Michigan v. Long

message: I know David Long - he's a good guy. But anyways, this article seems to be mainly based off of the police officer's account of the situation.  According to some friend's of Dave, the knife was only a 'pocket knife'.  Luckily he got off of this conviction, but he wasn't so lucky later on in life... Perditor 04:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The court ... ruled that Michigan misapplied Terry v. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment...  OK... in what way?  not a very informative article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Decision
Talk:Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

message: Notes indicate that Justices Marshall and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision and that Justice O'Connor took no part in the decision. I assume that Justices had interactions or dealings with plaintiff/defendant. Is this correct? Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the most likely reason, but one never knows for certain and we won't know for decades.  Until some intrepid researcher goes to dig up the personal papers of the justices involved to figure out why they had to recuse.  Only Marshall's papers are currently available (Rehnquist only died a few years ago and O'Connor is still alive) and to find the answer to that question one would have to dig through hundreds of boxes.  But the few people with the time, interest, and training in legal history to actually answer that question are usually chasing after much bigger questions than the one you posed. Most lawyers like myself are too busy litigating on behalf of the paying clientele. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no matter. My attention piqued while reading the table, and I figured I would ask. This is an excellent article: concise, brief, and informative. Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Justices Marshall and Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor?
Talk:Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

message: It is very odd that when this Case was decided there was an effort by New State public employees, specifically department of corrections employees were owed several million dollars in overtime pay. They were agitating for a strike to force the state of New Mexico to pay-up on this debt. The overtime was "on" the books and had not been paid to them. This finding by the scotus was very timely and coincidental in combing down the employees of the correction department of the state of new mexico.
It's also worth noting that Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals held much later that the medical leave portions of the Family and Medical Leave Act did not bind the states and seemed to be a significant retreat from Garcia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.168.189 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Tennessee v. Garner

message: How about including somewhere in there that the victim Garner, was only an eigth grader?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.72.123 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was with you, in fact, I'm reading the opinion now, and I was going to edit to mention it.  But in thinking about it, I guess it's not notable.  It doesn't seem relevant, when the cops testified he seemed 17 or 18.  It's sad and refretable that he was only an eighth grader, even if he was 15 years old.Ratherthanlater (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an important fact to mention. I have written a sentence stating that the police believed him to be 17-18 and that he was in fact 15 years old. NW (Talk) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Garner's age

message: While I agree with the decision to the extent that deadly force should not be used unless there is reasonable belief the subject constitutes an immediate danger, it also seems to me to be unfair to punish the officer for acting in accordance with state statute and department policy in existence at the time. In fact, to do so would seem to me to be an ex post facto law. We the officer punished in any way? Wschart (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind a reply nearly three years later: according to this article, the answer is no, the officer was never charged. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the officer? 

message: Following the controversial usage of deadly force in Ferguson, MO there has been talk about amending deadly force laws to follow the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v Garner.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/01/missouri-use-of-force-laws/19731233/  Also a connection to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#Legal_opinions would be appropriate. 67.171.68.186 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Impact? 

message: There was a incident where a police had shot a black man in the back, and then went and plant a gun next to him and say that the guy had drawed a gun on him. What we found out after the investigation is: guy didn't have no gun. Police just shot a man cold blood. --2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:2 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? How does this relate to the article? Primium mobile (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police shot a black man in the back
Talk:Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises

message: It seems like this article is in dire need of references, as well as some elaboration about the case itself and its fallout. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs References

message: In addition to the lack of secondary sources regarding the cases, it seems to me that such an important case requires substantially more content devoted to it. For instance, one important point about fair use that this article doesn't mention is the question of how important the excerpted material is to the whole of the piece. It's not that 300 words is a huge amount, as the article currently implies - what instead matters is the court's judgment that those 300 words discussing Nixon were at the heart of the book, the most important thing in it. Let's see if we can round up some well-sourced commentary that more fully conveys the case's importance. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Substance

message: Is "an historic" correct in internat'l English? !!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.30.17 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar
Talk:Amp Fiddler

message: I'm going to look into expanding this article as Amp Fiddler has a second album due for release in the UK in August 2006.  Also, he's certainly had airplay on BBC Radio 1 in the UK on specialist shows and because he has worked with funk luminary George Clinton. Escaper7 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an interview with him in The Irish Times, in early 2004, which is a nationally published newspaper, so I think he meets the criteria.--Richy 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've messaged the editor who added the boilerplate - if I don't get a prompt reply, then I will remove the boilerplate. Escaper7 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Seriously? You couldn't find a photo where we can see the face?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:770F:7700:406A:E1D2:D25D:D862 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We're limited to using freely-licensed images. If you have access to one, feel free to add it. Funcrunch (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo
Talk:Cottonmouth (Burchell Clemens)

message: *Black Panther #16-17
*Captain America #310-311, 313, 315, 319, 341-342, 365, 367, 380-382, 434-437
*Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #3
*Thunderbolts #55-58, 60-61, 63 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.11.242 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography