1754:. As I understand it, the question is whether the suit was commenced by the state or by the owner of the car. The confusion is understandable, since practice varies from state to state. However, in this case the suit was commenced by the state. We know this for three reasons. First, the statute under which the case was brought, then Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-4135 but now recodified as Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, states that a petition shall be filed in district court by the party seizing the same. Second, the style of the case names the State of Nebraska first. While some courts of appeal list the appellant rather than the plaintiff first (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court does this), we can tell from the case that the State was the appellee, so it must have been the plaintiff. Third, the dissenting opinion by Justice Clinton refers to the owner of the car as the defendant. Technically, of course, the “defendant” was the car itself, but in practical effect the owner was the defendant, and he/the car therefore could not be the plaintiff.
1204:"Donald D. Ruyle, the owner of the car, appeals from the judgment of forfeiture. " The (owner of the) car appeals, the state has to defend. Can you send me a link to the case where Nebraska actually sued the car. Or any source that simply states that Nebraska did this. Not a case that states that it is a case between A and B, where B sues A? As that is the case here. Is there any evidence that the case that is appealed wasn't between Nebraska and the owner, and the appeal only is between the car and the state? In any case, no the "many sources" about the funny name of the case do not convince me one way or the other, as someone with four decades of law school and legal practice yo should be well aware that such clickbait fun articles are not evidence of anything at all.
1770:
acts in rem against the seized property itself, under the legal fiction that the object is guilty of the crime. An in rem forfeiture proceeding is brought under the legal fiction that property itself is criminally at fault or is the progeny of criminal works. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against real or personal property, litigated as though the object were conscious instead of inanimate and insentient. Thus, the law ascribes to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong, and the proper defendant in a civil in rem forfeiture is the property itself.”
1614:
mean that the current owner "sues" the property. Presenting what you describe as a legal fiction, which isn't even maintained beyond the case title (e.g. the appellant and appellee contradict this fiction), as if it is the actual truth, should not be done. Claiming that
Nebraska sued a car is simply not what happened, and if you, from some legalustic procedural argument, want to maintain that the opposite isn't correct either, then a completely different hook is needed or the DYK simply closed.
248:
221:
426:
1030:- of course, the sourcing of the article is about half PRIMARY and half "lists of court cases with funny names", so it might be an AfD candidate anyway (as something not notable, just skirts the line of legal case notability, for the purpose of a DYK nom); I would restore the original if the situation was clear, but will remove approval of the alt as that also isn't clear. I have no interest in clarifying; if you want to work on it (or nom at AfD), I can review.
258:
351:
873:
141:
120:
151:
1097:
918:
521:
500:
72:
363:
416:
2223:
1075:
1046:
395:
531:
21:
89:
957:
1802:
Thanks. So if I understand this right, Nebraska sued dozens or hundreds of cars per year ("sued" as in rubberstamped in a police court or something similar), and what's special is that in this case the previous car owner appealed. Isn't a hook focusing on a completely mundane, commonplace aspect (and
1538:
against the state of
Nebraska, and not the other way around. If I start a case against you, then you aren't sueing me, but I am sueing you. Nebraska didn't start this case, Nebraska isn't sueing anyone or anything, they are being sued by the previous owner of the car. That's clearly what's being said
1803:
presenting it as if it happened "once") which didn't get any attention as such (no one paid any attention or gave any coverage to this car being seized) rather misleading then? It looks wrong to take something which is an everyday occurence, and put it on the main page as if it is something special.
1282:
of the case by now. That's the case where
Nebraska is the appellee, not the appellant. The car was seized, and the owner appealed, which is the case we have an article about. Your second source doesn't help us any further, and the last source indicates that the owner has to prove innocence, not just
1250:
If police suspect a property is somehow attached to a crime, they can seize the property and, unlike most other legal actions, the burden then shifts to the owner to prove that the property is innocent. That phrasing sounds odd, but the suit is considered in rem, meaning against the property and not
2226:
Agree with Eek, and the legal explanation of state "suing" the vehicle made sense to me. Just going to reinstate tick because further explanations really do support it... Here, the legal technicalities may be weirder than the hook, but clearly far too lengthy. Approve alt0 for AFD as Eek suggested.
1232:
That particular case illustrates that, even where a crime is charged, civil asset forfeiture can still be the instrument of terrible injustice: Police seized the
Gremlin after arresting its owner for mere marijuana possession, saying it had been used to 'transport' marijuana. The seizure was upheld
2190:
From WT:LAW. I agree that the hook is quite funny, and I don't see any problems with it. Apparently this particular forfeiture case was important enough to warrant coverage in RS, thus suitable for coverage by us. That it was a routine case is untrue, routine cases do not make it before a state's
1769:
Also, since there seems to be some confusion as to the characterization of property as a defendant, here is an explanation from Am.Jur.2d, Forfeitures and
Penalties § 17 (2021) (footnotes omitted): “Although forfeiture proceedings are deemed quasi-criminal in character or nature, civil forfeiture
1613:
The case name is not under dispute what the court is deciding isn't disputed either. The court presents a case against the property, which is initiated by the previous owner against the current owner. That the court or law frames this as a case between the current owner and the property, doesn't
1337:
I am not impervious to sources, I am not really convinced by people who use their supposed 50 years of experience as an argument ad authoritatem but then use Reader's digest or the "Bathroom
Readers' Institute" as evidence for a challenged hook. If you can't provide actual evidence for your hook,
2048:
Uh, no. You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it is. Your version of the article still seems to be deliberately written in a confusing way: "a
Nebraska Supreme Court
1686:
All or most of the sources listed above have myriad examples. It is a common format in drug forfeitures. Hypothetically, U.S. vs. boat. State vs. $ $ $ . State vs. 1970 Cadillac. As the Reader's Digest mentions: United States v. Forty-three
Gallons of Whiskey (1876); South Dakota v. Fifteen
1462:
5. “An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the court determines the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely as between themselves, but also as against all persons at any time dealing with them or the property upon which the court had adjudicated.” R.H. Graveson,
1117:
doesn't support the claim made in the hook, and gets in its one sentence the basic facts wrong: "Another due process suit, this one about the illegal seizure of a man’s parked vehicle after he was arrested for drug possession on foot." He was observed when coming home and parking, he was then
2200:
jurisdiction is a silly legal anachronism that has been luckily done away with in most contexts, but forfeiture is a hold out. The article isn't perfect, but a DYK only requires that the page be reasonably cited and up to standard. I think this case is a perfect fit for the April Fools slot.
1593:'against the property and deciding against the world.' It is a legal fiction and method of procedure. Your view, no matter how many times repeated, doesn't change the case name, the facts or the nature of the proceedings. I'm sorry that you didn't go to law school, but it shows.
1100:
The case the article is about is clearly about the (owner of the) Gremlin sueing
Nebraska, not the other way around. So what case is the hook actually referring to, and which sources support this (ignoring that at least some of these sources are very lightweight).
1718:
This last one is valuable, since it's a recent complaint at the federal level, and it states "The
Defendant in rem is a large cuneiform tablet bearing part of the Epic of Gilgamesh." So it seems like objects do indeed get sued by authorities. Although this is not
668:
64:
1027:
It was brought by the owner of an American Motors Rambler Gremlin, whose car was seized by the American state of Nebraska on the grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. An appeal was made against the forfeiture on the grounds of a lack of due
1539:
at the start of the case, and that's what logic dictates as well. If I have seized something from you, I don't need or want to start a case to decide about ownership: I hope no one objects (i.e. sue me) and the current situation becomes final.
2195:
proceedings make sense to me? Technically the state sues the object, but its owner obviously has an interest in the object and is the one who takes it through the court system. The object cannot literally hire a lawyer and appeal.
1242:"How the Bad Incentives of Revenue-Driven Law Enforcement Betray Public Trust Allowing law enforcement to collect revenue through an abuse of power and betrayal of public trust is a practice long past its expiration date"
1146:
I can understand people at first being confused by the case name being the reverse order of who sued who, but I don't get that people still try to approve this now, or claim that these sources somehow support the hook.
1866:) An action determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves, but also against all persons at any time claing an interest in that property. – also termed (in Roman law)
1121:
739:
1283:
reasonable doubt or somesuch. Where is the source that states that Nebraska started this law suit despite being the appellee and not having any actual reason to start this supreme court case in the first place?
1999:"When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content."
1510:
I am through debating this. For a thousand dollars on the mahogany I can be retained to further research this. (I was being ironic. So don't mischaracterize this as some kind of legal threat.)
2345:
966:
I don't think that the style of the case (parties and the denomination of the parties) supports the proposed ALTs. While I consider them whimsical and amusing. But literally, the car was
288:
305:
1534:
So no arguments at all about who sued and who was sued, only about the subject of the case, which wasn't under dispute. The subject is about who has the title of property, but
1427:
adj. involving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing. — also termed (archaically) – in rem, adv. See
1162:
Apparently you don't understand the nuances of the designations of Defendant, Plaintiff, Appellant and Appellee. It is true that the owner of the car appealed. But this was
2283:
2144:
You present something routine as something exceptional, using a case where the case by the state isn't the topic of the article (or the sources), but the appeal against it is
796:
773:
685:
52:
341:
482:
2340:
331:
295:
2355:
587:
2375:
2365:
472:
2315:
300:
2385:
1078:
Yup, giving it a check of support in case 7&6 is deemed to have taken over as nom for providing refs for the original (previously stricken) hook.
808:
577:
448:
2049:
civil forfeiture case. It was brought by the American state of Nebraska" Did the state bring a case in front of the supreme court? No, they didn't.
1690:
I never said I was a Nebraska lawyer. Forfeitures at the state level in Michigan do not typically name the object. This was what happened in the
60:
2335:
2154:, which is funny and doesn't happen everyday. 2) Articles about higher court cases typically include the entire case history: pick any article at
203:
2390:
2360:
961:
903:
553:
271:
226:
2370:
2325:
193:
439:
400:
1241:
1714:
I'm trying to figure out if this type of naming is common or whether it's a quirk of this particular case, and apparently it is common.
1168:, and the defendant is nominally the object. But if the many sources can't convince you, I don't know that I can (notwithstanding over
2380:
2350:
1380:(in rem) A court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property including the power to seize and hold it. Also termed
1313:
I am not going to give you a course in civil procedure. Apparently you are speaking from ignorance and are impervious to sources; I
283:
2330:
752:
730:
544:
505:
376:
231:
2209:
1227:
1105:
693:
279:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
100:
1687:
Impounded Cats. It is the way that forfeitures are often enforced, depending on the jurisdiction. What do you want exactly?
627:
2320:
2021:
As your own position has proven beyond peradventure, this type of legal action is little known and less understood by the
2301:
2267:
2236:
2212:
2171:
2125:
2092:
2078:
2058:
2043:
1812:
1797:
1779:
1763:
1740:
1709:
1681:
1658:
1623:
1608:
1582:
1568:
1548:
1528:
1347:
1332:
1292:
1273:
1213:
1199:
1156:
1087:
1064:
1039:
1019:
941:
911:
885:
866:
852:
832:
652:
1694:
forfeiture case (the innocent owner lost her car because of the misconduct of her husband with a street professional).
984:. The references I added to the article do support the original hook. Given that this nomination, since it came from
164:
125:
1889:
1478:
1442:
1405:
2294:
2260:
2118:
2071:
2036:
1702:
1601:
1561:
1521:
1325:
1266:
1192:
1057:
1012:
899:
648:
1918:
1177:
2110:
You have merely established that you are 'easily confused.' Hopefully the other editors aren't. Happy editing!
1727:
of the matter is that the car got sued. Since this is running for April 1st, I'm inclined to approve the hook.
977:
106:
1111:
a car, and the car owner sued Nebraska (which, through legalese, turned into the seized car sueing Nebraska).
168:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
1775:
1759:
993:
2288:
2254:
2112:
2065:
2030:
1715:
1696:
1665:
1595:
1555:
1515:
1319:
1260:
1218:
1186:
1132:
1118:
arrested and his car searched, and in the car drugs were found... But again no support for the hook here
1051:
1006:
895:
881:
780:
759:
644:
552:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
447:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
36:
1751:
1638:
1172:
five decades of law school and legal practice}. I recognize my opinion will be inevitably derideD as
1884:
1473:
1437:
1400:
828:
263:
88:
723:
1784:
In that case, it seems perfectly appropriate for a April 1st hook to suggest that a car got sued.
2279:
1691:
1641:. Not a Nebraskan lawyer, so I'll just ask ], do you have another example of a case named in the
1025:
The article needs some clean-up then, because it is at least unclear on this, e.g. from the lead
989:
1724:
1181:
247:
220:
20:
2232:
2166:
1792:
1771:
1755:
1735:
1676:
1653:
1305:
1083:
1035:
937:
927:
862:
848:
749:
727:
1923:
As I predicted, close scrutiny, if not outright hostility, of this nomination was inevitable.
1573:
Yes, the court decides who has the property. And who asked the court to make this decision?
877:
704:
2018:
F. Finally, that this is legally “routine” does not diminish its usefulness as a DYK hook.
1314:
857:
Reopening to propose an alternate hook (ALT1) that more accurately reflects who sued whom.
2250:
2202:
1894:
1880:
1483:
1469:
1447:
1433:
1410:
1396:
1000:
can restore the hook, so I have not bothered to post a note on his talk page, since it is
997:
985:
824:
536:
368:
2155:
1173:
890:
I suggested an ALT1a—I happen to think the active language gives the punchline some more
960:
New enough. Long enough. QPQ confirmed. No close paraphasing or copyright violations.
2088:
2054:
1808:
1619:
1578:
1544:
1343:
1288:
1209:
1152:
872:
745:
2309:
2063:
Uh, no. That is a construct/figment of your own imagination. It ain't in the hook.
1947:
907:
276:
65:
Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)
1096:
917:
612:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
350:
2228:
2159:
1785:
1728:
1669:
1646:
1079:
1031:
933:
923:
858:
844:
1114:
699:
140:
119:
41:
876:
New reviewer needed to review ALT1, since original reviewer proposed it. Thanks.
1952:
431:
150:
2222:
1074:
1045:
992:.' If someone restores the original hook, then I think this is GTG. Given the
618:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
956:
526:
520:
499:
444:
421:
358:
253:
156:
146:
1988:"The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and
2084:
2050:
1833:
1827:
1804:
1615:
1574:
1540:
1339:
1284:
1205:
1148:
415:
394:
31:
1978:
530:
275:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
2244:
1134:
again supports the case name, and clearly indicates that Nebraska is the
1001:
549:
2022:
1943:
1589:
1164:
781:
https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1974/39119-1.html
630:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
1925:
Your motives are best known to you; and I guess not relevant anyway.
1228:"'Cash Is Not A Crime': The Raw Tyranny Of Civil Asset Forfeiture"
694:"'Cash Is Not A Crime': The Raw Tyranny Of Civil Asset Forfeiture"
2146:
As a quick resonse: 1) the hook doesn't say that the State sued
2286:, See former article's history for a list of contributors.
2150:(which would be unexceptional), it says that the State sued a
2028:
It deserves the light of day and is proper on the main page.
169:
82:
15:
1664:
Uh, not sure what happened there, but this was means to ping
988:, will be subjected to increased scrutiny, we must give it '
349:
70:
1990:
should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness.
1258:
Perhaps your overlooked those when you read the article?
1587:
Yes, the court decides who gets the property, and it is
1957:
1922:
981:
673:
664:
840:
Funny hook. Length, creation date, and QPQ check out.
63:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
1723:
sourced for this particular case, it seems like the
1221:
is the name of the case. And here are two sources:
548:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
443:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2284:
Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)
28:
Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)
2346:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
982:have been promised, foretold or at least implied
1049:See above. Sources support the original hook.
894:. Anyways, this'll still need a new reviewer.
816:: For April Fools' Day, the in rem tradition.
700:"19 Serious Court Cases with Hilarious Names"
8:
1536:the case was brought by the owner of the car
1496:Your disparagement of me is being ignored.
632:No further edits should be made to this page
1107:doesn't state that Nebraska sued a car. It
741:Uncle John's Lists That Make You Go Hmmm...
61:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2022/April
494:
389:
215:
114:
809:Template:Did you know nominations/Waering
316:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
44:). The text of the entry was as follows:
738:Bathroom Readers' Institute (May 2015).
1338:then it can't appear on the main page.
496:
457:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Automobiles
391:
217:
116:
86:
71:
2143:
1240:Devereaux, John (September 24, 2018).
1226:McGlinchey, Brian (October 18, 2021).
1026:
990:the punctilio of an honor most certain
2341:Low-importance United States articles
2316:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles
59:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
2356:Unknown-importance Nebraska articles
1917:C. When that failed, you turned to
974:(i.e., the one who brings the suit).
562:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Cannabis
542:This article is within the scope of
437:This article is within the scope of
269:This article is within the scope of
162:This article is within the scope of
774:Nebraska was once sued by a gremlin
172:and the subjects encompassed by it.
105:It is of interest to the following
2376:Low-importance Automobile articles
2366:WikiProject United States articles
2083:No idea what "isn't in the hook".
1431:under ACTION. Cf. IN PERSONAM.
1310:Glad that you bloody well know it.
1251:the person who owned the property.
319:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
628:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Did you know
2386:Low-importance Cannabis articles
2221:
1995:"The hook should be neutral. ...
1893:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota:
1482:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota:
1446:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota:
1409:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota:
1095:
1073:
1044:
955:
916:
871:
529:
519:
498:
460:Template:WikiProject Automobiles
424:
414:
393:
361:
256:
246:
219:
149:
139:
118:
87:
19:
615:Please do not modify this page.
582:This article has been rated as
477:This article has been rated as
336:This article has been rated as
198:This article has been rated as
178:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
2336:C-Class United States articles
976:I don't want to be subject to
930:) 03:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
737:
696:. Nation HQ. October 18, 2021.
30:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
2391:WikiProject Cannabis articles
2361:WikiProject Nebraska articles
565:Template:WikiProject Cannabis
556:and see a list of open tasks.
451:and see a list of open tasks.
374:This article is supported by
2302:19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
2237:23:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2213:19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2172:17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2126:14:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2093:14:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2079:14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2059:14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2044:13:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
1813:08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
1798:00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
1780:00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
1764:23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1741:22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1716:Also found a recent example.
1710:22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1682:21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1659:21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1624:21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1609:21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1583:20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1569:19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1549:18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1529:18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1467:98 (7th ed. 1974) quoted in
1348:17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1333:17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1293:17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1274:17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1214:17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1200:17:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1157:16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1088:03:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1065:11:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
1040:21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
1020:17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
942:21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
912:03:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
886:18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
867:18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
853:01:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
833:09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
797:a gremlin once sued Nebraska
686:Nebraska once sued a gremlin
53:Nebraska once sued a gremlin
2371:C-Class Automobile articles
2326:Low-importance law articles
1499:You see the case name, but
1233:by the state supreme court.
1131:Finally, the primary source
932:- factual accuracy concern
620:this nomination's talk page
2407:
1138:, and the car (owner) the
653:20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
588:project's importance scale
483:project's importance scale
342:project's importance scale
204:project's importance scale
2381:C-Class Cannabis articles
2351:C-Class Nebraska articles
2268:12:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
581:
514:
476:
409:
357:
335:
272:WikiProject United States
241:
197:
134:
113:
2331:WikiProject Law articles
1553:See #3 & #4 above.
1505:understand the case name
718:Charon, Michael (2021).
277:United States of America
181:Template:WikiProject Law
40:column on 1 April 2022 (
2278:References copied from
1278:I bloody well know the
1128:, which is not disputed
624:the article's talk page
605:Did you know nomination
440:WikiProject Automobiles
1942:D. That something is
1900:
1890:Black’s Law Dictionary
1507:and its significance.
1494:
1479:Black’s Law Dictionary
1443:Black’s Law Dictionary
1406:Black’s Law Dictionary
1369:Here are the sources.
1124:just repeats the case
1004:and a vain exercise.
354:
322:United States articles
95:This article is rated
76:
1885:Black, Henry Campbell
1856:
1474:Black, Henry Campbell
1401:Black, Henry Campbell
1392:personal jurisdiction
1371:
922:I mean, technically.
831:). Self-nominated at
353:
99:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
74:
2321:C-Class law articles
1979:content at DYK hooks
1438:Black, Henr Campbell
1378:in rem jurisidiction
724:Simon & Schuster
720:Fight of the Century
545:WikiProject Cannabis
377:WikiProject Nebraska
264:United States portal
2191:supreme court. The
1958:requirement for DYK
1839:B. As you now know:
1382:jurisdiction in rem
1317:but you are wrong.
1184:ought to control.
968:the Defendant, and
463:Automobile articles
290:Articles Requested!
2280:Bennis v. Michigan
757:. ISBN 1626863768.
355:
101:content assessment
77:
2251:25,000 page views
1306:Res ipsa loquitur
836:
783:
762:
602:
601:
598:
597:
594:
593:
568:Cannabis articles
493:
492:
489:
488:
388:
387:
384:
383:
214:
213:
210:
209:
81:
80:
2398:
2300:
2290:7&6=thirteen
2266:
2256:7&6=thirteen
2225:
2207:
2169:
2164:
2124:
2114:7&6=thirteen
2077:
2067:7&6=thirteen
2042:
2032:7&6=thirteen
1981:is supposed to:
1919:WP:Wikilawyering
1898:
1881:Garner, Bryan A.
1795:
1790:
1738:
1733:
1708:
1698:7&6=thirteen
1679:
1674:
1666:7&6=thirteen
1656:
1651:
1607:
1597:7&6=thirteen
1567:
1557:7&6=thirteen
1527:
1517:7&6=thirteen
1487:
1470:Garner, Bryan A.
1465:Conflicts of Law
1451:
1434:Garner, Bryan A.
1414:
1397:Garner, Bryan A.
1331:
1321:7&6=thirteen
1272:
1262:7&6=thirteen
1253:
1235:
1198:
1188:7&6=thirteen
1178:WP:Verifiability
1099:
1077:
1063:
1053:7&6=thirteen
1048:
1018:
1008:7&6=thirteen
996:I don't expect
959:
920:
896:theleekycauldron
875:
822:
778:
758:
736:
716:
714:
713:
697:
690:
645:Theleekycauldron
639:The result was:
617:
570:
569:
566:
563:
560:
539:
534:
533:
523:
516:
515:
510:
502:
495:
465:
464:
461:
458:
455:
434:
429:
428:
427:
418:
411:
410:
405:
397:
390:
371:
366:
365:
364:
324:
323:
320:
317:
314:
266:
261:
260:
259:
250:
243:
242:
237:
234:
223:
216:
186:
185:
182:
179:
176:
159:
154:
153:
143:
136:
135:
130:
122:
115:
98:
92:
91:
83:
73:
23:
16:
2406:
2405:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2306:
2305:
2287:
2276:
2253:
2247:
2203:
2167:
2160:
2158:as an example.
2111:
2064:
2029:
1895:West Publishing
1879:
1836:from ignorance.
1832:A. You tried
1793:
1786:
1750:Also here from
1736:
1729:
1695:
1677:
1670:
1654:
1647:
1594:
1554:
1514:
1513:Best regards.
1484:West Publishing
1468:
1448:West Publishing
1432:
1425:in rem (in rem)
1411:West Publishing
1395:
1318:
1259:
1239:
1225:
1185:
1050:
1005:
998:User:The C of E
986:User:The C of E
755:
733:
717:
711:
709:
705:Reader's Digest
698:
692:
680:
678:
674:Article history
613:
607:
567:
564:
561:
558:
557:
537:Cannabis portal
535:
528:
508:
462:
459:
456:
453:
452:
430:
425:
423:
403:
369:Nebraska portal
367:
362:
360:
321:
318:
315:
312:
311:
310:
296:Become a Member
262:
257:
255:
235:
229:
183:
180:
177:
174:
173:
165:WikiProject Law
155:
148:
128:
96:
75:Knowledge (XXG)
12:
11:
5:
2404:
2402:
2394:
2393:
2388:
2383:
2378:
2373:
2368:
2363:
2358:
2353:
2348:
2343:
2338:
2333:
2328:
2323:
2318:
2308:
2307:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2216:
2215:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2026:
2023:general public
2019:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1993:
1992:
1986:
1985:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1837:
1830:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1800:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1688:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1311:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1236:
1144:
1143:
1129:
1119:
1115:Readers digest
1112:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1068:
1067:
1042:
975:
965:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
820:
819:
818:
817:
811:
802:
764:
763:
753:
746:Portable Press
731:
677:
676:
671:
661:
659:
655:
637:
636:
608:
606:
603:
600:
599:
596:
595:
592:
591:
584:Low-importance
580:
574:
573:
571:
554:the discussion
541:
540:
524:
512:
511:
509:Low‑importance
503:
491:
490:
487:
486:
479:Low-importance
475:
469:
468:
466:
449:the discussion
436:
435:
419:
407:
406:
404:Low‑importance
398:
386:
385:
382:
381:
373:
372:
356:
346:
345:
338:Low-importance
334:
328:
327:
325:
309:
308:
303:
298:
293:
286:
284:Template Usage
280:
268:
267:
251:
239:
238:
236:Low‑importance
224:
212:
211:
208:
207:
200:Low-importance
196:
190:
189:
187:
161:
160:
144:
132:
131:
129:Low‑importance
123:
111:
110:
104:
93:
79:
78:
68:
58:
57:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2403:
2392:
2389:
2387:
2384:
2382:
2379:
2377:
2374:
2372:
2369:
2367:
2364:
2362:
2359:
2357:
2354:
2352:
2349:
2347:
2344:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2334:
2332:
2329:
2327:
2324:
2322:
2319:
2317:
2314:
2313:
2311:
2304:
2303:
2298:
2297:
2292:
2291:
2285:
2281:
2273:
2269:
2264:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2246:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2224:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2199:
2194:
2189:
2188:
2173:
2170:
2165:
2163:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2122:
2121:
2116:
2115:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2075:
2074:
2069:
2068:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2040:
2039:
2034:
2033:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1948:extraordinary
1945:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1899:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1886:
1882:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:action in rem
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1838:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1801:
1799:
1796:
1791:
1789:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1742:
1739:
1734:
1732:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1680:
1675:
1673:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1652:
1650:
1644:
1640:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1592:
1591:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1564:
1559:
1558:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1524:
1519:
1518:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1504:
1497:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1439:
1435:
1430:
1429:action in rem
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1323:
1322:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1257:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1237:
1234:
1230:. Nation HQ.
1229:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1055:
1054:
1047:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
973:
972:the Plaintiff
971:
963:
958:
943:
939:
935:
931:
929:
925:
919:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
843:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
815:
812:
810:
806:
803:
801:
799:
798:
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
782:
776:
775:
770:
761:
756:
754:9781626863767
751:
747:
743:
742:
734:
732:9781501190414
729:
725:
721:
707:
706:
701:
695:
688:
687:
682:
681:
675:
672:
670:
666:
663:
662:
658:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
635:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
610:
609:
604:
589:
585:
579:
576:
575:
572:
555:
551:
547:
546:
538:
532:
527:
525:
522:
518:
517:
513:
507:
504:
501:
497:
484:
480:
474:
471:
470:
467:
450:
446:
442:
441:
433:
422:
420:
417:
413:
412:
408:
402:
399:
396:
392:
379:
378:
370:
359:
352:
348:
347:
343:
339:
333:
330:
329:
326:
313:United States
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
291:
287:
285:
282:
281:
278:
274:
273:
265:
254:
252:
249:
245:
244:
240:
233:
228:
227:United States
225:
222:
218:
205:
201:
195:
192:
191:
188:
171:
167:
166:
158:
152:
147:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
127:
124:
121:
117:
112:
108:
102:
94:
90:
85:
84:
69:
66:
62:
55:
54:
49:
46:
45:
43:
39:
38:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
2295:
2289:
2277:
2261:
2255:
2204:
2197:
2192:
2161:
2151:
2147:
2119:
2113:
2109:
2072:
2066:
2037:
2031:
1989:
1977:E. Indeed,
1951:
1888:
1875:
1874:. See also
1872:actio realis
1871:
1868:actio in rem
1867:
1863:
1859:
1857:
1787:
1772:John M Baker
1756:John M Baker
1749:
1730:
1720:
1703:
1697:
1671:
1648:
1642:
1636:
1602:
1596:
1588:
1562:
1556:
1535:
1522:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1502:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1477:
1464:
1441:
1428:
1424:
1404:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1368:
1326:
1320:
1304:
1279:
1267:
1261:
1249:
1245:
1231:
1193:
1187:
1169:
1163:
1145:
1139:
1135:
1125:
1108:
1094:
1058:
1052:
1013:
1007:
994:WP:Topic ban
969:
967:
954:
921:
891:
841:
821:
813:
804:
795:
791:
790:
772:
768:
766:
765:
740:
719:
710:. Retrieved
708:. 2021-12-17
703:
684:
657:
640:
638:
631:
623:
619:
614:
611:
583:
543:
478:
438:
375:
337:
301:Project Talk
289:
270:
199:
184:law articles
163:
107:WikiProjects
51:
48:Did you know
47:
37:Did you know
35:
27:
26:A fact from
2274:Attribution
2156:WP:FA § Law
1953:sui generis
878:BlueMoonset
842:Good to go!
823:Created by
794:: ... that
771:: ... that
454:Automobiles
445:automobiles
432:Cars portal
401:Automobiles
170:legal field
42:check views
2310:Categories
2205:CaptainEek
1637:Here from
825:The C of E
712:2022-01-12
157:Law portal
1956:is not a
1834:lawyering
1486:. p. 797.
1450:. p. 797.
1413:. p. 856.
1140:appellant
978:sanctions
964:is clear.
748:. p. 11.
744:(Ebook).
726:. p. 18.
691:Sources:
683:... that
50:... that
32:Main Page
2245:T:DYK/P2
2243:ALT0 to
1984:"Content
1897:. p. 30.
1887:(1999).
1725:WP:TRUTH
1721:strictly
1645:format?
1476:(1999).
1440:(1999).
1403:(1999).
1182:WP:Truth
1136:appellee
1028:process.
980:, which
904:contribs
805:Reviewed
779:Source:
760:and here
559:Cannabis
550:cannabis
506:Cannabis
232:Nebraska
2229:Kingsif
2162:JBchrch
2152:gremlin
1788:JBchrch
1731:JBchrch
1672:JBchrch
1649:JBchrch
1501:you do
1384:. See
1246:fee.org
1080:Kingsif
1032:Kingsif
934:Kingsif
924:Kingsif
859:28bytes
845:28bytes
814:Comment
665:Comment
641:yoinked
586:on the
481:on the
340:on the
202:on the
97:C-class
34:in the
2198:In rem
2193:in rem
1944:unique
1876:IN REM
1864:in rem
1752:WT:LAW
1639:WT:LAW
1590:in rem
1386:IN REM
1315:WP:AGF
1180:, not
1165:in rem
1109:seized
962:Earwig
910:/she)
892:woomph
306:Alerts
103:scale.
2148:a car
1858:*6.
1174:WP:OR
792:ALT1a
2233:talk
2168:talk
2089:talk
2085:Fram
2055:talk
2051:Fram
1828:Fram
1809:talk
1805:Fram
1794:talk
1776:talk
1760:talk
1737:talk
1692:John
1678:talk
1655:talk
1620:talk
1616:Fram
1579:talk
1575:Fram
1545:talk
1541:Fram
1423:4.
1376:3.
1344:talk
1340:Fram
1289:talk
1285:Fram
1280:name
1219:This
1210:talk
1206:Fram
1176:But
1170:four
1153:talk
1149:Fram
1126:name
1122:This
1084:talk
1036:talk
1002:moot
938:talk
928:talk
908:they
900:talk
882:talk
863:talk
849:talk
829:talk
769:ALT1
750:ISBN
728:ISBN
669:view
649:talk
2282:to
1950:or
1921:.
1878:.
1643:v.
1503:not
1389:Cf.
1238:2.
1224:1.
970:not
906:) (
767:**
667:or
643:by
626:or
578:Low
473:Low
332:Low
194:Low
175:Law
126:Law
2312::
2235:)
2091:)
2057:)
1946:,
1883:;
1870:,
1811:)
1778:)
1762:)
1668:.
1622:)
1581:)
1547:)
1472:;
1436:;
1399:;
1394:.
1346:)
1295:\
1291:)
1248:.
1244:.
1212:)
1155:)
1086:)
1038:)
940:)
902:•
884:)
865:)
851:)
807::
777:?
722:.
702:.
689:?
660:(
651:)
622:,
230::
2299:)
2296:☎
2293:(
2265:)
2262:☎
2259:(
2231:(
2210:⚓
2123:)
2120:☎
2117:(
2087:(
2076:)
2073:☎
2070:(
2053:(
2041:)
2038:☎
2035:(
2025:.
1960:.
1862:(
1807:(
1774:(
1758:(
1707:)
1704:☎
1701:(
1618:(
1606:)
1603:☎
1600:(
1577:(
1566:)
1563:☎
1560:(
1543:(
1526:)
1523:☎
1520:(
1342:(
1330:)
1327:☎
1324:(
1308:.
1287:(
1271:)
1268:☎
1265:(
1208:(
1197:)
1194:☎
1191:(
1151:(
1142:.
1082:(
1062:)
1059:☎
1056:(
1034:(
1017:)
1014:☎
1011:(
936:(
926:(
898:(
880:(
861:(
847:(
835:.
827:(
800:?
735:.
715:.
679:)
647:(
634:.
590:.
485:.
380:.
344:.
206:.
109::
67:.
56:?
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
