Talk:Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Association

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Village pump request

This precedent setting case was found as a redlink, and this village pump post ('Legal Help Needed for Bold edit' in Miscellaneous) is being made bringing editors trained in the law to undertake adopting it ASAP! FrankB 16:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Comment moved from article page to talk page by Alsee (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just did a re-write of this article. Hopefully the information is helpful; let me know if you have any suggestions or recommendations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. v. Hortonville Education Ass’n. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926224101/http://www.weac.org/about_weac/history/history_book_chp5-1.aspx to http://www.weac.org/about_weac/history/history_book_chp5-1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of ruling on other state laws

@Fabartus: Many thanks for your kind words about this article. In your last edit, you added a sentence that said: "Since the Wisconsin State Law specifically forbade said strike, the ruling also affirmed that such state laws were legal." However, the United States Supreme Court's ruling was limited to the question of whether a due process violation occurred, and the court did not issue any ruling with respect to the legality of the Wisconsin law or other state laws.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger explained that "[t]he sole issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits this School Board from making the decision to dismiss teachers . . . ." (426 U.S. at 488 (emphasis added)). Because the United States Supreme Court is "bound to accept the interpretation of Wisconsin law by the highest court of the State," (Id.) the United States Supreme Court had to accept the Wisconsin Supreme Court's conclusion that the Wisconsin law was not illegal; the United States Supreme Court said nothing about the legality of similar laws in other states. Nor would it be fair to say that the Supreme Court's reliance on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of Wisconsin law implicitly established that such laws were lawful. For those reasons, I am going to go ahead and remove the sentence that you added. In any event, thanks so much for letting us know about this very interesting case. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your superior knowledge of the law, though the implication is aprori one would think. If the type of laws were illegal as the union represented (or so I recollect now from reading one or more of the web pages about it), the ruling would have been different as well. Or so I understood. On your head let it be. FrankB 19:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]