This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
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
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
Hi Rhadow. I think using "Assn." in a Wikipedia page title would be ugly and unconventional. A redirect from that title makes sense, though. The docket uses "Association" exclusively, it looks like. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MZMcBride, you are absolutely correct. The full style of the case is Christopher J. Christie, Governor of New Jersey, et al., Petitioners v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. Looking at the stack of documents (the docket) will lead you occasionally to other names -- in this case, for example, to NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA. Even in the Court's own summaries, for example the link to the oral arguments, it is Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Ugly as the abbreviation may be, it may end up in the history record, like this one, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections. Rhadow (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With Breyer's mixed opinion, we need to somehow clarify that the decision to make PASPA unconstitutional was only 6-3 (Breyer did not concur on those parts), but the decision to reverse the Third Circuit's ruling that blocked NJ from removing the gambling bans was 7-2. --Masem (t) 16:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm was also asking about this. I suppose saying it was 6.5–2.5 would be too cute? :-) It's probably best that we avoid the "score" entirely in this case and simply describe how the opinions came out. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could mention both vote counts? Something like... "ruled in a 6-3 opinion that PASPA was unconstitutional and 7-2 to reverse the Third Circuit's prior ruling about New Jersey..."? Legoktm (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
