Talk:Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Case citation for this case is incorrect

Dear Ksmith:

I see that you apparently have begun an article on a court case called "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, 72 S 243 (1982)". However, "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, 72 S 243 (1982)" is not a valid citation for an American court decision.

Perhaps you meant "72 S. Ct. 243 (1982)." That could be a United States Supreme Court decision. A preliminary search I just did at www.findlaw.com reveals no U.S. Supreme Court decision with the name "Chrapliwy" in the style of the case. Right now I don't have immediate access to the official United States Reports or the West Supreme Court Reporter, so I can't fully check this myself.

There is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit called: Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 956 (1983), that is cited in some U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986). There is also a case called Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 17 Fed. Rules Serv. 2d 719 (N.D. Ind. 1973).

If those are not the cases you are talking about, and you are referring to a United States Supreme Court decision, the form of the citation is usually something like "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., xxx U.S. xxx (1982) or "Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., xxx S. Ct. xxx (1982).

Please go back and double check your citation. This could be a good case to discuss, but we need to have a valid citation so that people can study the case.

Yours, Famspear 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks. I'll have to go back to my working papers...

ksmith

Dear editors: I went ahead and changed the citation in the article to conform to the comments above. I do this reluctantly, as I have not actually studied the case (therefore I'm not going to make any edits to the substance of the article until and unless I actually do study the text of the court's decision). Yours, Famspear 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]