Talk:Chisholm v. Georgia

Untitled

The table that I removed is a bad idea. This is an improper relationship and sequence to try and establish in this table manner—the list of Court cases by year at List of United States Supreme Court cases is the best that can be done with this. 1) That one court decision has "followed" another is to say legally that it followed its reasoning, not that it merely occurred subsequent to it in time; 2) there are simply far too many Court cases decided each year and sometimes in a single day (at least in the last century) for such a table to function; 3) the order that the Court releases its opinions is fairly arbitrary, depending on workload, who the opinion is assigned to, internal politics of decisionmaking, etc., and so a case that is argued before another may be nonetheless decided afterwards, and a case that is decided by conference vote before another may nonetheless have its opinion released afterwards. Postdlf 22:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a majority of the above and I agree with the removal. The only time I would have a table would be to show what case is used as a precedent in the given opinion (if any) and what case reversed, overruled or nullified the opinion (if any). Either way, I think a table that can more adequately show this point can be made in the future, if needed. For now, I agree with the removal, but anyone interested in putting together a table template for precedent and subsequent decisions as described above is free to do so.

Yes, I agree that showing how a particular case followed the precedent of another, or was followed as precedent, could be a good table, though difficult to implement, judging from the sheer number of cases that typically cite to the important decisions, and the difficulty in deciding when a particular case was actually integral to another decision. The Court doesn't always say "we overrule Blah v. Blah today" or "we follow here the rule laid out in Blah v. Blah." But yeah, that's the only type of relationship, at least, for which tables like this one would be valid. Postdlf 01:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intro Wording

 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is considered by many to be the first great 
 United States Supreme Court case. Because of this, there is little background information 
 (particularly in American law) available for it.

This intro sentence doesn't make sense, either it should read

 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is considered by many to be the first great 
 United States Supreme Court case. Despite this, there is little background information
 (particularly in American law) available for it.

or

 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) is considered by many to be the first great
 United States Supreme Court case. Because of this, there is quite a bit of 
 background information (particularly in American law) available for it.

so which is it? --CVaneg 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Seriatim Confirmation

(At that time, there was no opinion of the court or majority opinion; the justices delivered their opinions seriatim or individually, in ascending order of seniority.)

Can we find a source that this is the case? It seems to be that case when looking at the opinion but how do we know that was the norm "at that time"? -- Karthanitesh (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia

This article mentions that Chisholm v. Georgia is erroneously considered originally filed through the Supreme Court and considering that this case doesn't seem to fall under the original jurisdiction of the Court, I am liable to agree. But I am really uncertain how to address this in the infobox and other sections of the article other than a note in the background section maybe? - Karthanitesh (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)