Jump to content

Talk:Doe v. Holy See

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SCOTUS?

[edit]

The article says:

It was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009 after being approved by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Is this true? None of the sources appear to say that SCOTUS has granted certiorari to hear this case. Gabbe (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source document from the National Catholic Register talks about the 6th Circuit Court to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is technically a lower branch of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is quite high up in the American legal system, it is very close to the final court. It would probably get to the Supreme Court if that given lower court were unable to resolve the dispute once and for all. ADM (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a more recent source here from Beliefnet that openly declares that “the case has reached the US Supreme Court”.[1][2] ADM (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled the article. Some notes on the courts:

  • I have seen no source at all that says Oregon's state court system was involved in this case. The state court systems are parallel and unrelated to the federal system. The federal court system is divided up by states also, so the names may be confusing. "United States" courts are federal courts. This case appears to have been federal from the beginning: it originated in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
  • There was some statement about the case going to the Supreme Court of the United States after "being approved by" the district court. I don't know what that means. U.S. District Courts have original jurisdiction and are two levels below the Supreme Court; they don't have the right to "approve" whether SCOTUS hears a case.
  • This is not a 6th Circuit case; this case came up through Oregon to the 9th Circuit. The previous version of the article seems to have mixed up this 9th Circuit case (06-35563 & 35587) and O'Bryan et al v. Holy See, a similar 6th Circuit case (07-5078 & 5163) from the Western District of Kentucky. (See 6th Circuit 07-5078/5163 opinion.)
  • The United States courts of appeals are not a branch of the Supreme Court; they are created separately under Article Three of the United States Constitution. After a case is heard by the apellate court, a party to the lawsuit can attempt to get the case into the United States Supreme Court, but it's difficult — see the next line.
  • As of January 2010, this is not yet a Supreme Court case: see Certiorari#Federal courts. Though it has a docket entry, SCOTUS only accepts about 1.1% of the cases. "Brought before" the Supreme Court is vague; the Supreme Court hasn't given permission to bring the case before them yet. That's what certiorari is for.

The article still needs information on what the District Court ruled and what the 9th Circuit ruled. --Closeapple (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CERTIORARI DENIED

[edit]

Supreme Court:

News:

Picodoro (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John V. Doe?

[edit]

Why John V. Doe not John Doe? Hugo999 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doe v. Holy See. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doe v. Holy See. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doe_v._Holy_See&oldid=1201586568"