Talk:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

message: Martin vs. Hunter came after the state ignored the Fairfax's Devisee vs. Hunter's Lessee decision. Considering the significance and controversy of this "landmark" decision, I believe it is negligent not to mention that the state of Virginia effectively upheld the State Supreme Court decision. Martin did not sue the State of Virginia in Federal court for not upholding the ruling, and Hunter retained his rights to the property.
Basically, party A said party A is supreme, and party B said party B is supreme. B is still saying that B is supreme, but despite broader implications that have stood the test of time, the reality of that specific case was that A did manage to retain their sovereignty.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman; BA, MPAff, and JD from the University of Texas, MA and PhD in American History from the University of Virginia, and author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and other books / publications on the Supreme Court; was being interviewed on the radio recently (October 7, 2009, The Mike Church Show) and was discussing the outcome of this case. He mentioned that it is discussed extensively in the above mentioned book. I could not find further references to the aftermath of the case other than  which cites  as a source, but upon review does not actually SUPPORT that the STATE ignored Martin v. Hunter Lesee, just that the COURT ignored Fairfax's Devisee vs. Hunter's Lessee.
There have been many cases where states / governors have ignored federal supreme court decisions. As far as an encyclopedic entry about the case itself, implications of a case may be beyond the scope of the article. I expect that would be the argument against its inclusion, but as mentioned above, facts that have kept this landmark case a historical controversy should really be included. Considering the issue, and if this article exists because of the cases notability, this article lacks a NPOV to leave off with saying the Supreme Court won an argument against itself.--199.80.142.104 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to expand the article based on any reliable sources you have found and other editors will review; I'm probably not the only one who has this article in his watchlist.  U.S. Supreme Court articles should have sections titled "subsequent jurisprudence," which explains how later court decisions have built upon, used, etc. this decision, and "subsequent developments," which is for what happened later to the facts of the case or for broader societal impact of the case outside of case law.  I think all of what you describe above would fit into one of those two sections.  Postdlf (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable issue 

message: While it's of a PD text (the decision itself) a lot of text from this article is a direct quotation or close paraphrase of the decision text with no indication that it is one. This is somewhat problematic. I have my constitutional law final this week, else I'd be happy to BOLDly address this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close quotation without attribution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124004401/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-hunters-lessee.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-hunters-lessee.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)