User talk:L33th4x0rguy - Knowledge (XXG)

119:, Justice Story didn't create that power; he merely clarified the status quo. Before the early 19th century, Common Law Judges in the U.S. and in England did not pay attention to "choice of law," especially in common law cases. Story, the most astute of any then-living American attorney when it came to conflicts of law, having studied European approaches, opted to treat common law as transcendant, rather than as a positive state act. Common law wasn't, according to the Swift expalanation, the act of any state, but something with a life its own. Today, and for nearly 80 years, it has been widely held that this is a philosophically vacuous view of law, be it common law or statutory law. 1627:

is the link broken, but the way it is presented suggests that Maine's guidelines may be similar to California's (I don't know if this is true, but I suspect it is not.) The link I provided in my original edit is the best outline of California's process I have found online and I think it provides valuable additional information regarding the subject of legal ethics. I would suggest that it should be put back the way I had it originally or it should be used to replace the broken CalBar link (with some additional clarification regarding Maine.) I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

25:. Your edit is fine and I have not modified it. However, I wanted you to be aware that your edit summary is inaccurate. As you stated, there was competition law in the U.S. before the Sherman act. That law was common-law based. State law and Federal law are different. Federal courts, officially speaking, do not have lawmaking power. Therefore, the common law was not U.S. Federal law. It was state law. The article correctly stated that the Sherman act was the first U.S. government act to regulate competition. Just thought you might like to know. 158:

different states." The distinction indicates that the framers envisioned Federal Courts as hearing cases that presented "federal questions," but also cases that did not ("diversity cases"). But at the time, there was no view of common law as the positive law of any sovereign; the consensus was that common law was Platonic, with an existence transcending state or national boundaries. Impliedly, the Framers did not incorporate all common law into being federal law just because they permitted Federal Courts to hear and decide common law cases.

183:

courts that also involve interstate commerce, as arguably any federal case applying the decisional rule of the restraint of trade doctrine would probably be, is special, and may enjoy the status of non-general federal common law, such as constitutional common law or interstitial common law. But I can tell you with great certainty that it doesn't. There is a limited crossover that the court has sometimes held that Congress can authorize the court to make common law, in an area where Congress has an Art. I, s. 8 power to act. For example, in

414:(See also, Wallingsford v. Allen, 35 U.S. 583, 594 (U.S. 1836) (noting that Maryland law is purely persuasive and not binding; distinguishing the application of common law coverture)); Fallon v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 1 MacArth. 485 (D.C. 1874) (demurring contract in restraint of trade; D.C. case); Odlin v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 18 F. Cas. 583 (C.C.D. Pa. 1808) (maritime)). It would be incomprehensible to say that cases decided by federal courts, under exclusively federal jurisdiction, are not decisions under federal law. 716:

being the predilictions of judges in future cases, and how well future judges think past judges did in articulating the rules, and whether the identical case is ever litigated again. Another factor, however, is the intent of the court issuing the decision. If a court phrases its decision as being in terms of one body of law that subsequent cases aren't going to rely upon, they're making it substantially less likely that subsequent courts would give it weight. Federal courts in diversity cases during the

168:

their contemplation, a philosophy of law that viewed common law adjudication itself as a legislative state act. That philosophy did not emerge until the early 20th century in the writings of Holmes and the "legal realist" school. Additionally, to apply the modern view "backwards" would have the interesting but undesirable effect of making the "arising under" clause and the "diversity" clause of s. 2 redundant. In fact, today, if we had not abolished the Fed. General Common Law in

690:

or is authorized, to give it. For example, under state law, when a state court hears a motion to dismiss (on a demurrer or the equivalent motion to Fed. R. Civ Pro. 12(b)(6), it has the power to decide that the case is involuntarily dismissed without prejudice, which means the plaintiff may refile, or it can, if the appropriate and extraordinary circumstances for such a sanction are met, turn it into a judgment on the merits, and make its dismissal preclusive.

240:

railroad act shows that. (But then, why would you write that it was the first statute, if you are going to disagree with that also??) The railroad acts were not the first act of congress to regulate a particular trade either. Any regulation of a particular trade will affect competition in the market or markets relevant to that trade. However, the Sherman act was (as far as I know) the first act, other than the common law doctrines, to regulate competition for

379:

there was no state law to apply. Such as areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction (again, admiralty, indian nations, the district, and other limited international style areas) where the feds have exclusive federal rules that determine outcomes. Those rules are laws, and are thus federal laws. I'm reasonably convinced too that the law applied in those instances embodied, if they were not themselves the embodiment for, the principles of the Sherman Act.

2303: 721:

standard of care. If they were, they would be making federal law for the general welfare, which is not a power the federal government has. So, they weren't trying to "bind the nation." At most, they had a quasi-legislative hope that, if they interpreted the common law better than the next court, someone else would cite them approvingly - but that would still be a positive act of whatever court next cited them.

1100:

non-personal. Notifying a user directly is not only more time consuming (requires more clicks, and also requires checking history to figure out who's most appropriate to send the message to) but suggests the article's problems are the fault of a particular user. I realize now, in this case you were the only contributor, but in many cases articles need addressing because of their sum and not their pieces.

2087: 1887: 805:

The Sherman act has the firstness of being the first affirmative act intended to deal with anticompetitive practices, as opposed to a judicial act that has quasi-intentionally legislative effects, not intended to be lawmaking or even entirely governmental, as understood at the time. Your apology is absolutely unnecessary. Thanks again. I hope you'll join the party at WP:LAW if you haven't already.

634:"making law" because the common law process involves applying law made by other judges, or judges making new law to solve the case in the guise of applying law made by other judges. Hence, I don't just say that judges in private disputes are still acting governmentally, I often say "judges do legislate." I don't think you can live in a post-Holmes, post-Cardozo world and think otherwise! 339:, but even in the 19th century, adjudications of courts were still considered "law." Whether they thought they were creating it or "revealing it", is relevant in determining whether they cared about choice of law, but not in whether or not they considered it a "law." I'm not in any sense arguing that Swift was correct, only that it was in effect. 1990: 357:

as law created by federal entities. That would encompass statutes, federal common law, etc. I understand your point to be that all of the common law that existed though was state law based. I disagree with that conclusion because if the judges are never creating the law then the law is not state law for the same reason it is not federal law.

211:

federal reporters about them. Even to the extent that there are some, the courts hearing these cases would not have viewed their role as deciding federal law (although not state law either), but something different entirely. Even they would have realized it was inconsistent with the Constitution to treat it as Federal law.

448:

thus, governed by federal maritime law under reverse erie doctrine. You also bring up a good point I am curious about. If you acknowledge other areas of judicial decision making, such as constitutional common law, would you consider those federal laws? I would, and perhaps that is the primary question here.

1559:

between G1 and G2 under that interpretation, but even so, this page is also G3 vandalism. If, by some tremendous good faith "Smelly socks" is a reference to a film, or a saying, or socks in a hamper, and that is somehow notable, then please explain how this doesn't then fit under CSD A1 (perhaps even A3).

1348:

Related context, such as whether or not there are many similar temples, how this fits into a larger set of practices, how significant the temple is, other things like this. Of course I know none of this, so I just tag articles that are unclear to me, since if it's unclear to me it may well be unclear

1054:

Knowledge (XXG) tags are available and widely deployed for exactly this reason. If the consensus of editors that make up Knowledge (XXG) had concluded that all issues should be immediately changed, tags would not be necessary. This is not the consensus and the fact that the tags exist demonstrates as

804:

My only point is that I still have some hesitation about saying that common law decisions of Federal courts pre-Erie were "making federal law," because it would exceed the intent of the judges who decided them. I agree that the Sherman Act wasn't the first U.S. government act to regulate competition.

746:

Put another way, there's two ways in which a court "makes the law." In one of these ways ,federal courts in diversity cases were really making federal law, because they were acting on behalf of the state, validly committing the coercive power of the state to a certain decision that they had the power

720:

years, by intentionally populating "common law" decisions, were creating decisions that were very limited in where they would apply; though they had many of the legislative features of common law adjudication, they couldn't really be cited in state court, and weren't really meant to alter any federal

663:

F.G.C.L., the Judges doing it, did not until post-Holmes, think they were positing any law. They did not intend to be legislators. They did not intend to insert a government interest into private disputes they resolved. The second misconception of the role of the court is not too important; whether a

586:

we're taking language from a maritime case, and maritime cases are a variant of "arising under" cases where jurisdiction is, as you say, exclusive, as opposed to "diversity cases" where it is most definitely concurrent. Federal courts still have exclusive maritime jurisdiction and create "specialized

378:

federal court judges were applying federal common law which was law they created themselves, they believed that they were applying state law (as directed by the rules of decision act) even when using the federal common law. I might actually find that argument persuasive. But there are instances where

47:

did in many ways relegate federal common law to obsolescence, there remain a number of areas where federal courts do, officially, have positive law making power. Areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction in particular; the district of columbia, indian tribes, and admiralty law come to mind immediately.

1626:

I think the link you deleted from my 7/16 edit should be included in this page. As mentioned in the Enforcement section, California and Maine have unique guidelines and processes for enforcement of legal ethics issues. The current link provided in this section goes to the CalBar website - not only

1048:

I tag articles that need improvements in order to bring attention to the specific problems, and to help categorize them so other users can find them and address the problems. This is one of the many little tasks that's going on all the time on Knowledge (XXG). Tagging is helpful and a necessary part

968:

Based on context in the article, the subject seemed non-notable. If the subject's notable the article should indicate why. The article as is suggests some publications but that's the only plausible notability claim. If the article's notable, then it's my mistake; however in any case, there is severe

689:

The second misconception is a little trickier. Legislation is intentional business (although it may have unintended consequences), but in formal terms, there's a difference between a proposed law, and an enacted law. It's well settled that a case has no more preclusive effect that the court intends,

356:

Whether these decisions under Swift were state or federal law is, I suppose, the relevant question. I understand your point to be that because no court ever thought they were making the common law as they declared it, then none of that common law was federal law. I define federal law broader--namely

300:

I agree. My point is not that the Sherman Act was only a codification of federal common law, or that federal common law even comprised the bulk of what congress intended to federalize when enacting an anti-trust statute. I only take issue with the notion that federal law (including judge made common

157:

Federal courts are courts of limited in subject matter jurisdiction (much like the government of which they are a branch was created to be a government of limited jurisdiction). Art. III, s. 2 distinguishes between cases "arising under" the laws of the U.S. government, and those "between citizens of

1183:

I'm just curious, is there some particular reason why you object to the spelling as 'centre', instead of 'center'? The project is an international one, not an American one, and the 'centre' spelling happens to be correct in virtually every country where English is spoken as a first language except

873:

Methinks you acted hastily in removing 2 external links which helped to shed more light on the subject of ch.13 bankruptcy. Do you know what "cram down" means? The term is used a lot these days, and it is not covered anywhere in WP. The link covered it. Where was the commerciality? Nothing was

210:

In other words, there is nothing about the restraint of trade doctrine's relationship to interstate commerce that makes it different from other common law rules. The lead cases on the doctrine weren't even American, but English, preexisting the U.S. There are not, to my knowledge, many cases in the

167:

To take the view that because there was Federal General Common Law, the common law of restraint of trade was Federal law is flawed for several reasons. First, it's anacrhonistic. At the time that the courts were engineered to followed common law, the archtects of those courts simply did not have in

128:

But while Federal Courts were common law adjudicators at the relevant times, that doesn't mean that all common law was Federal law. As weak as the then-existing philosophies of law were, the Federal government's understanding of law did distinguish, even in the 18th and 19th centuries, a separation

774:

Also, while you'd still acknowledge a maritime case in U.S. court as ultimately applying U.S. law as they act on behalf of the U.S. Government, judges hearing Maritime cases aren't strictly applying "U.S. federal law" for rules of decision, nor creating new federal law to bind all U.S. citizens or

480:

I don't disagree with that. The sentence that is in the article reads: " was the first United States government statute to limit cartels and monopolies. It is the first and oldest of all U.S., federal, antitrust laws." I do not believe the ICA regulated cartels and monopolies nor do I believe that

182:

It should not matter either that there is an overlap between the particular common law doctrine and an enumerated power of Congress. You might argue that because restraint of trade overlapped with the Art. I, s. 8, cl. 3 "interstate commerce" power of Congress, that common law decisions of Federal

60:

was released, Brandeis authored Hinderlider v. La Plata River Co., 304 U.S. 92, 110. That case, involving an interstate water body explicitly used federal common law. For more on the remaining areas of federal common law take a look at Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 426 (1964).

1084:

I have no issue with the tag, the word "golf" certainly needed including, just the carefree manner in which it was applied. As you are clearly aware, it is not uncommon for newly created articles to take time to develop into something useful. I just don't happen to think that immediate tagging of

447:

My point was not to argue that any interstate case would be governed by Federal Common law, or should today. I would think Erie put an end to that. However, in some instances there are. For instance, disputes on Lake Michigan, or Lake Tahoe--interstate waterways--might well be admiralty cases and

239:

Second, you make an interesting point about the existence of other trade regulations. As I see it, there is a sense in which the Sherman act has "firstness," and a sense in which it doesn't. It was not, by any means, the first act to regulate competition in a particular trade. Your example of the

196:

There's also a "total preemption" exception to the "well-pleaded complaint rule" of 28 U.S.C. 1331. Normally a case does not 'arise under' federal law for s. 1331 unless it creates the plaintiff's cause of action; a case where federal law creates only a defense, such as preempting the plaintiff's

52:

which did endorse federal common law. At the time of the passage of the Sherman Act, and given the history of the act at its passage, there was federal common law that placed restrictions on restraint of trade in contract and otherwise. This is in part evidenced by some of the floor debates about

1558:

I am familiar with the criteria and I disagree with your interpretation of it. This article is patent nonsense, but if you are going to assert that because it uses complete sentences (sort of) and actual words it is not, then it qualifies for G2, a test page. It's unclear what the distinction is

715:

By the same token, I would argue, the legislative effect of case law can differ - it has the force of law only between the parties, but it can have a great deal of precedential impact in future transactions or cases, or it can have none. There are several factors that determine that, one of them

430:

You might argue that because restraint of trade overlapped with the Art. I, s. 8, cl. 3 "interstate commerce" power of Congress, that common law decisions of Federal courts that also involve interstate commerce, as arguably any federal case applying the decisional rule of the restraint of trade

1199:

I only changed it because the previous style was to use the U.S. and not commonwealth (Canadian in this case) spelling. The Knowledge (XXG) style guide is to use the local spelling when the article is on a local topic, and when that is ambiguous (as in this case, when the Canadian and American

1099:

Our key difference appears to be how we regard the emotional import of tagging a page. I don't believe it's meant to be insulting if done in good faith, and wikipedia guidelines generally indicate as much. As discussed above, tagging is a quick and efficient way of indicating this, and is also

396:

There were exclusively federal restraint of trade cases that predated the Sherman Act. (See, e.g., Thompson v. The Catharina, 1795 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3 (D. Pa. 1795) (maritime restraint of trade, note 9; sources of maritime law generally); Or. Steam Navigation Co. v. Winsor, 87 U.S. 64, 67 (U.S.

1208:

however the initial style (take a look at a version from July 2007) used was "center". To perfectly adhere to the guidelines the initial inclusion of "centre" should have been changed. That said, I don't have any desire to change it and would leave it to others to change the remaining ones.

114:

I'll elaborate. Federal Courts were, at the time, "common law courts," and capable of being general lawgivers, like state courts or the courts of England. This was the case from the inception of the Federal Judiciary in 1789 until April 25th 1938, Federal Courts freely followed Common Law

1420:

I agree my usage of the name Datura was not accurate, (my excuse is that I've always referred to both genera by the older name, used as a common name - e.g. 'that's a datura of some kind'. On the question of a note to say that some 'lilies' are poisonous, the word Lily redirects to

201:.) However, there is an exception when a "field" is "totally preempted" by Federal law, in which the state law based suit is preempted by Congress. Nevertheless, that does not apply here, because the commerce power has always been held to be non-exclusive, and concurrent. 515:

You're right - we do not have any substantial disagreement. Thank you for (a) clarifying, (b) indulging me in a little academic musing and (c) helping improve the article in a way that to others may look small, but actually contains (as we've just explored) a world of

1103:

I continue to believe that tagging is an efficient and necessary part of wikipedia, so long as it is in good faith. I appreciate your contributions and also want you to know that my addition of the tag was in no way a personal attack or comment directed towards you.

53:

amendments to the original act. Senator Hoar and Morgan both pointed out the additional advantages to codifying the common law, including the federal common law: extending it to foreign commerce, as well as giving private rights of action and the statutory damages.

68:

certainly regulated competition amongst the railroads, setting rates, freights, and schedules. However, as the article's written now, it says the Act was the first to regulate cartels and trusts, as well as the first anti-trust statute. I believe that phrasing is

172:

the clauses would be redundant. But since we do not presume that legislators had the intent not to make redundant utterances, I take this as evidence that the framers meant not to take the view of common law adjudication in federal court as acts of federal

1184:

the US. Just to be clear, this wasn't a spelling error. I'm not really sure that this was a valid edit, and would have reversed it, apart from the fact that the edit also included several fact tags that were appropriate. Just food for thought for you.

1446:

Going back to true lilies, although many species are eaten by people, I have a vague recollection of some people having adverse reactions to some species. This might just be confusion of names though; e.g. some day lilies are somewhat toxic.

334:

That may be true in terms of how a 19th century court thought of the common law. In fact Swift certainly gives credibility to this approach. But the nomenclature used today shouldn't be similarly naive. Obviously common law precedent was not

1085:

articles in this way is helpful. A more civil way to raise concerns about the quality of a new article would be to drop the creator (in this case me) a note to highlight any issues, either as well as or instead of adding the tag? Regards.

1271:

Hello L33. Your advice to this user will probably fall on deaf ears. For a long time now I have to fix and revert most of his edits. He apparently has no regard for format, a major headache-in-good-faith if you will. Oh boy. :-/ Regards,

104:

where there was none before (it's still just a stub though, b/c I've been too busy to work on it.) But While there is and has always been Federal Common Law, even when there was "Federal General Common Law" not all Common Law was Federal

220:

When I refer to it today as an exercise in following "state law" it is an anacrhonistic exoression. I am applying today's thinking to explain thinking in a way it wasn't thought of at the time it was thought. However, I am not applying

904:. If you believe those links do not fall within the category, please discuss it on the Talk page. Cramdown in chapter 13 is merely a procedure to overcome secured creditor objections to a plan. Specifically it's § 1325(a)(5)(B). 317:

At the time that the courts were engineered to followed common law, the archtects of those courts simply did not have in their contemplation, a philosophy of law that viewed common law adjudication itself as a legislative state

138:

It was a 20th century idea, based on emerging philosophies of law and politics, that Federal Courts should not be true common law courts, because it gave them undue legislative power. But long before the doctrinal revolution in

481:

the ICA was an antitrust law. However, I do not believe the statement "the Sherman act was the first U.S. government act to regulate competition" is accurate. I wasn't very clear what I was responding to there; my apologies.

2262:

Two things atm, Tight cases~Documented cases and warfare/terrorism/ extortion. Some contributors have gone way overboard on the article over the last 10 years. Could use a bit of help, perhaps on the article talkpage?

431:

doctrine would probably be, is special, and may enjoy the status of non-general federal common law, such as constitutional common law or interstitial common law. But I can tell you with great certainty that it doesn't.

1064:, you know a lot about the subject, have been working on the article, and are in the best position to improve it. I would hope you would appreciate specific guidance, particularly early in the article's development. 1514:

Your edits were reverted because they were vandalism. You replaced Ned Flanders with Ned Flounders. Also, I did not revert your edits. Another user did. I placed a message informing you of this on your talk page.

1069:

I'm sorry if you were offended by the tag's inclusion, but I'd chasten you to be more circumspect in your tone when responding in the future. I'm only trying to improve the article on a subject of your interest.

129:

of lawmaking power. The Federal Government is a government of "enumerated powers," not "general power." That was important to the Framers as a way of preventing an American dictatorship, or an American oligarchy.

100:. To conceive the issue as an Erie problem is to put the cart before the horse. I am mindful of the distinction between federal common law and "Federal General Common Law." In fact, I created the wiki article on 2189:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 147:

court (and its predecessors and its successors), our lawmakers and judges acknowledge a difference between cases in federal court, and federal question cases. That distinction is in Art. III of the Constitution

852:

Hahah, it took me a while to figure out what exactly you were referring to. I appreciate the compliment and I return the same to you. I look forward to more in the future. (copied to your talk page as well)

229:

doctrine either. I'm stating, charitably, what was "actually happening." It certainly wasn't Federal law the courts were applying, even if they didn't realize that they were supposed to look at it as state

874:

offered for sale on these sites, but only served as enlightening sources. Please maintain your NPOV and reverse your removals. Or do an article defining cram down. That would be helpful.

282:

Thanks for the reply. Interesting discussion. I suspect we're really not in disagreement on the vast majority of points (if any) so I'll try to answer to tease out any lingering questions.

1562:

I do not appreciate this hyper technical approach to CSD categories. I am not tagging plausibly useful articles in an effort to slip them past Afd, but doing routine vandalism patrol.

296:

To take the view that because there was Federal General Common Law, the common law of restraint of trade was Federal law is flawed for several reasons. First, it's anacrhonistic.

301:

law) was silent on issues of restraint of trade prior to the Sherman Act (I say this with understanding of the distinction between a federal court sitting in diversity too).

1858: 928:. The internet is the communication network, the many linked documents, such as the Electronic Yellow pages, are part of the World Wide Web. Curious why the revert. 1861:

has been blanked out and vandalized. I have undone the cleanup and reverted the page to its last edit; please let me know if I have done something wrong! Thank you.

1470: 747:

to make. But in another way, they weren't, because they did not view themselves as having the power to create "law" to govern any other transaction, past or future.

1720: 1163:

Thanks for the heads up. I thought it was asking for the total page count of the book. I'll go through the places where I used it and correct it. Thanks again.

1737:

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using

1706:

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.

1828:

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Knowledge (XXG) are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

983:

Yep, the article needs clean-up, but there are lines there that suggest notability and importance. Could you notify the editor about this? Thank you. --

1425:, and this article is unambiguously about the true lilies which are generally agreed not to be poisonous. So I feel it would be inappropriate there. 2374: 2143: 1954: 1443:

article (assuming that it is the species referred to in the original report) nor its sister species have any text stating that they are poisonous.

1543:

did not even come close to the definition of patent nonsense. It's not helpful to delete pages which shouldn't exist on an invalid justification.

1432:

may need a link to this species of Brugmansia. I would not include this unless the additional term 'lily' in the name is very common. Looking at

1148:

says that only one of the two should be present. Unfortunately I don't know which page you're referring to, so I can't fix it myself. Cheers,

1060:

I do at times make changes rather than just tag issues, but it's not always efficient for me to make the specific changes. For instance, with

2278: 2264: 2214: 929: 881: 1200:

spellings differ) then to use whichever style is first established. I see now that there was actually one instance of each spelling in

896:

Removing commercial links is standard procedure, particularly for the Bankruptcy pages which tend to attract a lot of these links. See

1483: 2378: 2147: 1958: 1777: 2390: 1728:

Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

1606:

Thanks, I agree. If it's not obvious, I got the formatting from the Tax guys. Maybe more can be done with the template formatting.

664:

court intends to be a state actor or not, because it brings the coercive power of the state to settle a dispute, it is. It just is.

1906:

Non-notable intermediate court of appeals opinion. Was only in effect for a year before it was reversed by the Supreme Court in

1487: 2229: 2038: 1933: 2210: 1643: 1439:

I note that both Brugmansia and Datura have long had sections stating that they are dangerously poisonous. However neither the

950: 2366: 2314: 2292: 2135: 2098: 2076: 1946: 1898: 1876: 1894: 1880: 1595: 1296:

Thanks for the heads up. I almost resorted to writing a script, but hoped saying something would be quicker. I guess not.

187:(although the idea absolutely outraged Justice Frankfurter, who wrote a very articulate and famous dissent in that case!). 2370: 2139: 1950: 2386: 2201:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1049:

of wikipedia, and it helps create a list of articles that people can contribute towards when they're inclined to do so.

2206: 545:

I have just two things I'd like to add (again, not in substantial disagreement, but further refinement of the issues).

1709:

It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or

65: 1804: 1379: 1206:

so my change was premature (unless there are other versions of American spelling taking precedence--I didn't check)

1033:

less than 10 mins after creation. Alternatively, why not just address the problem rather than leaving it? Regards.

2246: 2282: 2268: 2061:

the PGP-key you provide on your user-page is expired. Could you please renew it so it can be more usable? :-). --

1061: 1030: 943: 901: 64:

Also, it would be inaccurate to say that the Sherman Act was the first federal act to regulate competition. The

2122: 1666: 997: 1345:

It's unclear what Maa Mangala is. If it's a diety, that should be indicated; if it's a statute that too; etc.

885: 1907: 1313: 933: 842: 810: 262: 30: 1631: 1342:

Religion associated with the temple (there is a cult listed, but what larger religion is it? Is there one?)

877: 464:

But then, why would you write that it was the first statute, if you are going to disagree with that also??)

2353: 2237: 2045: 1768: 1479: 900:

for full details. Even non-spam links should be removed if they do not add something extra to an article:

2382: 2202: 2151: 1962: 1639: 2015: 1578: 1548: 1440: 1433: 1429: 1402: 1387: 1375: 1279: 22: 1839: 1759: 1739: 1671: 1655: 1436:, where the name is only given as 'Angel's tears', it seems that the added 'lily' is not always used. 897: 1398: 1383: 2310: 2296: 2159: 1682:

to assimilate into Knowledge (XXG) all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing

1189: 2178: 2169: 2104:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

2008: 1999: 1635: 1491: 2094: 2080: 1265: 1153: 1090: 1038: 2327: 2198: 2182: 1210: 1866: 1798: 838: 806: 258: 26: 2323: 248:

within the jurisdictional reach of the U.S., that was not a regulation of a particular industry.

143:, even back in the days of the flawed view of law, and choice of law, embodied by Story and the 949:

Hi. The page your tagged for speedy seems notable. Not pretty sure but would you mind checking

2349: 2233: 2118: 2041: 2003:, a WikiProject and resource for Knowledge (XXG) cleanup listings, information and discussion. 1929: 1607: 1563: 1516: 1474: 1355: 1324: 1297: 1250: 1229: 1214: 1164: 1145: 1105: 1071: 970: 905: 854: 482: 70: 2194: 2186: 1495: 56:

Even today, saying there is absolutely no federal common law is incorrect. The same day that

1713: 1544: 1319:

You found the introduction unclear. What clarifications would help users make it clearer? --

1284: 582:

You have a pretty good example that they didn't. I don't disagree. (I say "kind-of" because

2336: 2197:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2190: 2105: 1916: 1536: 2155: 1185: 2066: 1970: 1915:

While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1683: 1149: 1133: 1086: 1034: 87:

Hi LH. Your reply is interesting.I hope you'll indulge me in a few follow-up responses.

2335:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1249:

Ok. My apologies. I guess I didn't check them together; it just sounded very similar.

1862: 1855: 1833: 1455: 1005: 988: 958: 1886: 1586: 1540: 1320: 1469:

You never finished your merger proposal by properly tagging the destination page (

48:

More to the point though, in 1890 the issue of federal common law was governed by

1808:

about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

1235:

That wasn't a direct quote, but rather a rewording, hence no quotation marks. --

659:

I'll tell you what I think is important though: whether it's maritime law or pre-

1817:

don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to

1535:

Hi there. If you're going to regularly patrol new pages, please brush up on the

1274: 1236: 2277:

Oddly, the talkpage was protected for some reason or other. Just a heads up.

2255: 1397:

Thanks for having another look, h4x. I added some more discussion over there.

2128:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1939:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

2062: 1966: 2394: 2286: 2272: 2241: 2218: 2163: 2070: 2049: 2020: 1974: 1870: 1844: 1647: 1615: 1600: 1571: 1552: 1524: 1500: 1459: 1406: 1391: 1363: 1328: 1305: 1290: 1258: 1243: 1222: 1193: 1172: 1157: 1113: 1094: 1079: 1042: 1009: 992: 978: 962: 937: 913: 889: 862: 846: 814: 490: 266: 78: 34: 2359:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1694: 1451: 1001: 984: 954: 925: 574:

I wouldn't say that federal judges deciding common law cases pursuant to

21:

Hi there, l33th4x0rguy, I noticed your recent edit to the article on the

2101:. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. 2185:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

1989: 630:

Nor would I say they weren't acting on the part of the government and

1422: 1201: 1910:. All information in this stub is already in the Prinz article. 197:

state law cause of action, is not deemed a federal question. (

1983: 40:

Thanks for the response, however it is not entirely accurate.

2301: 2085: 1988: 1885: 1790: 1136:. In the citation template for your reference, you list the 96:

First, it would be a mistake to say my comment as based on

1745:

a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join

61:

Also see Tex. Indus. v. Radcliff Materials, 451 U.S. 630.

1374:

Hey, L33th4x. I dropped some comments about the lead to

2377:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

2146:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1957:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1129: 257:

I hope this explains a little bit better what I meant.

2342:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2111:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1922:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1473:) and by commenting. I am not sure where you stand.-- 374:

I also realize that your point might instead be that

2012:

the project, just add your name to the member list.

1658:-- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum 2177:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1793:to your classmates, and tell them to do the same. 2254:your recommendations sought for improvements to 1584:Nice template. This was definitely needed. -- 1471:African Americans in the United States Congress 998:This link suggests that the article is notable. 1665:I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in 8: 1743:as our headquarters, we're hoping to create 578:-style federal general common law ("FGCL") 587:federal common law" for it, unaffected by 1506:Why did you revert my Ned Flonders post? 2348:notice, but please explain why in your 2117:notice, but please explain why in your 1928:notice, but please explain why in your 1334:These items were what I was thinking of 595:-style," because I maintain the "Swift 225:doctrine retroactively or ignoring the 1895:Mack v. United States (Ninth Circuit) 1881:Mack v. United States (Ninth Circuit) 1778:Knowledge (XXG):Hornbook/participants 1675:, the new "JD curriculum task force". 1354:Thanks for your help on the article. 837:... for making me think, once again. 580:thought they were applying state law. 7: 2230:Knowledge (XXG):Missing Wikipedians 2039:Knowledge (XXG):Missing Wikipedians 1791:http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:Hornbook 2337:deleted for any of several reasons 2317:because of the following concern: 2106:deleted for any of several reasons 1917:deleted for any of several reasons 1901:because of the following concern: 1020:Note: Article subsequently deleted 14: 2322:No evidence of notability, fails 2203:review the candidates' statements 591:to this day. I also have to say " 1510:Seriously, why. I'm clueless. 66:Interstate Commerce Act of 1877 2209:. For the Election committee, 2179:Arbitration Committee election 2170:ArbCom elections are now open! 1775:to your userpage, and ~~~~ to 920:revert Electronic Yellow Pages 1: 2330:found to indicate notability. 2219:12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 2050:14:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 2021:12:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1975:19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC) 1854:Hi there. I noticed that the 1306:21:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 1291:21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 1259:20:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 1244:20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 1223:20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 1194:12:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 1173:22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 1158:17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 1114:22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 1095:10:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 1080:00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 1043:14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 938:03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 914:20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 890:20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 863:22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 847:01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 2326:, no sources. No sources or 2164:05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC) 1784:2. If you're a law student, 1667:United States legal articles 1572:23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 1553:15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1537:criteria for speedy deletion 1525:02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 1501:21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 1460:17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC) 1407:01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 1392:06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1010:09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 993:09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 979:09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 963:09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 603:decision by about 50 years.) 2381:allows discussion to reach 2362:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2345:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2242:00:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC) 2228:You have been mentioned at 2205:and submit your choices on 2150:allows discussion to reach 2131:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2114:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2071:13:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 2037:You have been mentioned at 1961:allows discussion to reach 1942:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1925:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1871:08:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 1364:08:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 1329:07:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 115:adjudication. Moreover, in 2410: 2395:06:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 2373:exist. In particular, the 2287:18:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 2273:18:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 2211:MediaWiki message delivery 2142:exist. In particular, the 1616:04:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 1601:04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 1370:Intellectual property lead 944:Jennifer Kathleen Phillips 35:21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2367:proposed deletion process 2136:proposed deletion process 1947:proposed deletion process 1845:05:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 1648:06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 1062:2007 Tour de las Americas 1031:2007 Tour de las Americas 951:possible reliable sources 1997:You are invited to join 1796:Contact me directly via 1611: 1567: 1520: 1359: 1301: 1254: 1218: 1168: 1124:Red blood cell reference 1109: 1075: 974: 909: 858: 486: 74: 2387:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse 2354:the article's talk page 2123:the article's talk page 1934:the article's talk page 1908:Printz v. United States 1314:Kakatpur Mangala Temple 1025:More patience required? 924:Please see the article 815:23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 491:00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 267:22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 79:05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 2333: 2306: 2090: 1993: 1890: 1349:to another reader too. 1339:Country (is it India?) 2379:articles for deletion 2319: 2315:proposed for deletion 2305: 2183:Arbitration Committee 2148:articles for deletion 2099:proposed for deletion 2089: 1995:Hello, L33th4x0rguy. 1992: 1959:articles for deletion 1899:proposed for deletion 1889: 1579:Template:USBankruptcy 1441:Brugmansia_suaveolens 1434:Brugmansia_suaveolens 1430:Lily_(disambiguation) 1376:intellectual property 23:Sherman Antitrust Act 2224:Just to let you know 2033:Just to let you know 1752:What you can do now: 1719:in Knowledge (XXG) ( 1697:will have a subpage. 2187:arbitration process 2095:Taylor Complex Fire 2081:Taylor Complex Fire 2059:Hello L33th4x0rguy, 2000:WikiProject Cleanup 1980:WikiProject Cleanup 1763:to your watchlist, 1029:Thanks for tagging 2371:deletion processes 2307: 2199:arbitration policy 2140:deletion processes 2091: 1994: 1951:deletion processes 1891: 1819:someone who might. 1669:to take a look at 1289: 1207: 246:across all markets 2293:Proposed deletion 2077:Proposed deletion 2027: 2026: 2019: 1877:Proposed deletion 1843: 1662:Hi L33th4x0rguy, 1651: 1634:comment added by 1499: 1273: 1230:Dreyse Model 1907 1205: 1146:Template:Citation 880:comment added by 869:Commercial links? 2401: 2364: 2363: 2347: 2346: 2304: 2250: 2133: 2132: 2116: 2115: 2088: 2018: 2016:Northamerica1000 2013: 1984: 1944: 1943: 1927: 1926: 1836: 1773: 1767: 1718: 1712: 1650: 1628: 1589: 1477: 1287: 1282: 1277: 1241: 1143: 1139: 969:cleanup needed. 892: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2375:speedy deletion 2361: 2360: 2344: 2343: 2311:Kawle (surname) 2302: 2300: 2297:Kawle (surname) 2279:126.243.109.174 2265:126.243.109.174 2260: 2244: 2226: 2207:the voting page 2173: 2144:speedy deletion 2130: 2129: 2113: 2112: 2086: 2084: 2057: 2035: 2023: 2014: 1982: 1955:speedy deletion 1941: 1940: 1924: 1923: 1884: 1859:discussion page 1852: 1842: 1771: 1765: 1716: 1710: 1680:Our mission is 1660: 1629: 1624: 1599: 1587: 1582: 1533: 1508: 1467: 1415: 1372: 1317: 1285: 1280: 1275: 1269: 1237: 1233: 1213:for more info. 1211:Here's the link 1181: 1144:parameter, but 1141: 1137: 1128:Hi, thanks for 1126: 1027: 953:? Thank you. -- 947: 922: 902:WP:LINKSTOAVOID 875: 871: 835: 599:" preceded the 19: 12: 11: 5: 2407: 2405: 2385:for deletion. 2365:will stop the 2299: 2290: 2259: 2252: 2225: 2222: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2154:for deletion. 2134:will stop the 2083: 2074: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2034: 2031: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2004: 1987: 1981: 1978: 1965:for deletion. 1945:will stop the 1913: 1912: 1883: 1874: 1851: 1848: 1838: 1834:Andrew Gradman 1830: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1810: 1809: 1794: 1782: 1749: 1748: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1707: 1699: 1698: 1676: 1659: 1653: 1623: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1593: 1581: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1560: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1507: 1504: 1466: 1463: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1316: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1268: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1180: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1134:red blood cell 1130:your additions 1125: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1101: 1066: 1065: 1057: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1026: 1023: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 946: 941: 921: 918: 917: 916: 870: 867: 866: 865: 834: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 274: 272: 271: 270: 269: 252: 251: 250: 249: 234: 233: 232: 231: 215: 214: 213: 212: 205: 204: 203: 202: 191: 190: 189: 188: 177: 176: 175: 174: 162: 161: 160: 159: 152: 151: 150: 149: 133: 132: 131: 130: 123: 122: 121: 120: 109: 108: 107: 106: 91: 90: 89: 88: 82: 81: 62: 54: 41: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2406: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2340: 2338: 2332: 2331: 2329: 2325: 2318: 2316: 2312: 2298: 2294: 2291: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2257: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2223: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2171: 2168: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2126: 2124: 2120: 2109: 2107: 2102: 2100: 2096: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2054: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2040: 2032: 2030: 2022: 2017: 2011: 2010: 2005: 2002: 2001: 1991: 1986: 1985: 1979: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1937: 1935: 1931: 1920: 1918: 1911: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1888: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1856:Donnie dumphy 1850:Donnie dumphy 1849: 1847: 1846: 1841: 1835: 1827: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1801: 1800: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1769:User Hornbook 1762: 1761: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1735: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1715: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1687: 1685: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1657: 1654: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1591: 1590: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1505: 1503: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1472: 1464: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1448: 1444: 1442: 1437: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1424: 1418: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1267: 1266:User:Doirocoa 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1240: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1140:and also the 1135: 1131: 1123: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1053: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1024: 1022: 1021: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 945: 942: 940: 939: 935: 931: 930:69.106.243.72 927: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893: 891: 887: 883: 882:76.172.56.255 879: 868: 864: 860: 856: 851: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 839:Non Curat Lex 832: 816: 812: 808: 807:Non Curat Lex 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 719: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 633: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 602: 598: 594: 590: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 492: 488: 484: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 465: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 432: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 377: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 338: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 319: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 299: 298: 297: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 268: 264: 260: 259:Non Curat Lex 256: 255: 254: 253: 247: 245: 238: 237: 236: 235: 228: 224: 219: 218: 217: 216: 209: 208: 207: 206: 200: 195: 194: 193: 192: 186: 185:Lincoln Mills 181: 180: 179: 178: 171: 166: 165: 164: 163: 156: 155: 154: 153: 146: 142: 137: 136: 135: 134: 127: 126: 125: 124: 118: 113: 112: 111: 110: 103: 99: 95: 94: 93: 92: 86: 85: 84: 83: 80: 76: 72: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 46: 42: 39: 38: 37: 36: 32: 28: 27:Non Curat Lex 24: 16: 2369:, but other 2358: 2350:edit summary 2341: 2334: 2321: 2320: 2309:The article 2308: 2276: 2261: 2234:Ottawahitech 2227: 2174: 2138:, but other 2127: 2119:edit summary 2110: 2103: 2093:The article 2092: 2058: 2042:Ottawahitech 2036: 2028: 2007: 1998: 1996: 1953:exist. The 1949:, but other 1938: 1930:edit summary 1921: 1914: 1905: 1893:The article 1892: 1853: 1831: 1818: 1814: 1803: 1797: 1776: 1764: 1758: 1751: 1750: 1744: 1738: 1721: 1686:to footnotes 1681: 1679: 1678: 1670: 1664: 1661: 1625: 1622:Legal Ethics 1594: 1585: 1583: 1541:Smelly socks 1534: 1509: 1475:TonyTheTiger 1468: 1449: 1445: 1438: 1427: 1419: 1416: 1373: 1318: 1270: 1238: 1234: 1202:this article 1182: 1127: 1028: 1019: 1018: 948: 923: 872: 836: 717: 660: 631: 600: 596: 592: 588: 583: 579: 575: 463: 429: 375: 336: 316: 295: 273: 243: 241: 226: 222: 198: 184: 169: 144: 140: 116: 101: 97: 57: 49: 44: 20: 1840:WP:Hornbook 1760:WP:Hornbook 1740:WP:Hornbook 1672:WP:Hornbook 1656:WP:Hornbook 1630:—Preceding 1545:Bigbluefish 1399:Demian12358 1384:Demian12358 898:WP:LINKSPAM 876:—Preceding 337:legislative 242:any market' 102:Hinderlider 17:Sherman Act 2256:Cybercrime 2195:topic bans 2156:Zackmann08 1492:WP:CHICAGO 1186:Emrgmgmtca 584:inter alia 2383:consensus 2328:WP:SIGCOV 2313:has been 2191:site bans 2152:consensus 2097:has been 1963:consensus 1897:has been 1832:Regards, 1799:talk page 1684:hornbooks 1636:XRobinson 1428:However, 1150:AxelBoldt 833:Thank you 2324:WP:NNAME 1863:McMarcoP 1695:casebook 1644:contribs 1632:unsigned 1596:contribs 1450:Thanks. 1087:bigissue 1035:bigissue 926:Internet 878:unsigned 632:de facto 597:doctrine 69:correct. 2258:article 2245:please 2055:PGP-Key 1757:1. Add 1722:example 1714:anchors 1588:Eastlaw 1496:WP:LOTM 1417:Hi LH. 1378:on the 1321:Sidsahu 1239:moe.RON 775:courts. 516:issues! 376:even if 199:Mottley 148:itself. 2352:or on 2181:. The 2121:or on 1932:or on 1789:Email 1465:Merger 1423:Lilium 1413:Lilies 1382:page. 1179:Centre 1138:pages= 397:1874)) 43:While 1805:email 1693:Each 1142:page= 1055:much. 718:Swift 601:Swift 593:Swift 576:Swift 227:Swift 145:Swift 117:Swift 50:Swift 2391:talk 2283:talk 2269:talk 2247:ping 2238:talk 2215:talk 2160:talk 2067:talk 2063:DaB. 2046:talk 2009:join 1971:talk 1967:TJRC 1867:talk 1640:talk 1612:talk 1568:talk 1549:talk 1521:talk 1456:talk 1403:talk 1388:talk 1380:talk 1360:talk 1325:talk 1312:Re: 1302:talk 1255:talk 1219:talk 1190:talk 1169:talk 1154:talk 1110:talk 1091:talk 1076:talk 1039:talk 1006:talk 989:talk 975:talk 959:talk 934:talk 910:talk 886:talk 859:talk 843:talk 811:talk 661:Erie 589:Erie 487:talk 318:act. 263:talk 244:and 230:law. 223:Erie 173:law. 170:Erie 141:Erie 105:Law. 98:Erie 75:talk 58:Erie 45:Erie 31:talk 2295:of 2175:Hi, 2079:of 2006:To 1879:of 1815:You 1802:or 1531:CSD 1488:bio 1452:Imc 1276:Hús 1132:to 1002:Efe 985:Efe 955:Efe 2393:) 2356:. 2339:. 2285:) 2271:) 2249:me 2240:) 2232:. 2217:) 2193:, 2162:) 2125:. 2108:. 2069:) 2048:) 1973:) 1936:. 1919:. 1869:) 1772:}} 1766:{{ 1725:). 1717:}} 1711:{{ 1646:) 1642:• 1614:) 1608:LH 1592:⁄ 1570:) 1564:LH 1551:) 1539:. 1523:) 1517:LH 1498:) 1458:) 1405:) 1390:) 1362:) 1356:LH 1327:) 1304:) 1298:LH 1286:nd 1257:) 1251:LH 1221:) 1215:LH 1204:, 1192:) 1171:) 1165:LH 1156:) 1112:) 1106:LH 1093:) 1078:) 1072:LH 1041:) 1008:) 1000:-- 991:) 977:) 971:LH 961:) 936:) 912:) 906:LH 888:) 861:) 855:LH 845:) 813:) 489:) 483:LH 265:) 77:) 71:LH 33:) 2389:( 2281:( 2267:( 2236:( 2213:( 2158:( 2065:( 2044:( 1969:( 1865:( 1837:/ 1821:) 1813:( 1781:. 1747:. 1688:. 1638:( 1610:( 1566:( 1547:( 1519:( 1494:/ 1490:/ 1486:/ 1484:c 1482:/ 1480:t 1478:( 1454:( 1401:( 1386:( 1358:( 1323:( 1300:( 1281:ö 1253:( 1217:( 1188:( 1167:( 1152:( 1108:( 1089:( 1074:( 1037:( 1004:( 987:( 973:( 957:( 932:( 908:( 884:( 857:( 841:( 809:( 485:( 261:( 73:( 29:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index