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 United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
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
Shouldn't these official [historical?] terms at least be applied in this article? I couldn't find any use of them in any other article either! Please ping me if you want to answer – which I would highly appreciate! Thanks in advance--Hubon (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this sentence: The net result of riding circuit was that, in many cases which ended up before the Supreme Court, a member of the Supreme Court had already heard the case and issued a ruling. In a real sense, the Supreme Court was, in such cases, acting as an en banc panel; i.e. hearing a case upon which one of their members had already passed judgment. This appears in the lede but doesn't seem to be sourced and rather seems like synthesis or original research (at the very least, the comment about similarities to sitting en banc). I'll probably be expanding the article as a whole over the next few weeks. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 06:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
