Talk:Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

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.

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dudebob5420.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

In section II-B of the opinion, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0490_0228_ZO.html , Justice Brennan wrote, "In deciding as we do today, we do not traverse new ground." Does that mean the decision is or isn't important? Or is it merely ironic? I would like to know why an article is of importance, as this one seems to be. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see: obiter dictum. Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]