28USC1344

28USC1344 is a first-year law student in Washington, D.C.

Articles

Created

• Jurisdiction stripping
• Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
• Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
• Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

Substantially altered

• Discovery (law)
• Hickman v. Taylor
• Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
• Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
• Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
• Regulatory taking
• Sandra Day O'Connor
• Work-product doctrine

Patrolled for vandalism

• Sandra Day O'Connor (this page is particular suceptible to vandalism, for reasons beyond me)

Projects

General

I often prefer less to generate my own content and more to improve upon and reorganize other people's content. Specifically, I like organizing articles into a strict and simply hierarchy, and adding as many citations as humanly possible.

Cases

I would like to spend more time editing case articles on Wikipedia. However, I tend to like to "brief" cases, instead of writing standard encyclopedia articles about them. For my own purposes, I created the "Super-Maxi-Brief" format for cases, which I use both in my studies and for editing Wikipedia case articles. A brief in this format follows the the structure below:

1. Parties
2. Background
   1. State of law—Particular statutes or regulations relevant to the case (such as the basis for a claim or defense, or the subject of a constitutionality dispute)
   2. Facts—The real-world factual background of the dispute
   3. Procedural history—Everything that the parties did in anticipation of, or during, litigation, except for the very last step (the posture)
   4. Procedural posture—The object sought by the party appealing or moving
3. Legal Analysis
   1. Issue—The question at hand regarding specific actions of the court
   2. Arguments/theories—Arguments of all parties and, if relevant, of the lower courts or amicus curiae
   3. Rule of Law—The rule of law followed, or created and followed, by the court
   4. Holding—The answer to the issue (usually a minor rewording of the issue)
   5. Notable concurrences and dissents
4. Result
   1. Judgment/disposition—The order the court
   2. Legacy and other notes

My article on Hickman v. Taylor is a good example of the Super-Maxi-Brief format.

Membership

1. WikiProject Law
2. I am considering started a Wikipedia Society at my law school. However, I think that it might be redundant, as the WikiProject Law may be sufficient.
3. I am also considering joining the WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. However, my Super-Maxi-Brief format does not conform at all to the standard proposed by that group.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Law.