Talk:Vosburg v. Putney

	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.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Factually Incorrect and Misleading

Orton wrote for the majority in 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. (the first appeal);

VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. 99; 1890 Wisc. LEXIS 276

October 20, 1890, Argued; November 5, 1890, Decided

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.

OPINION: ORTON, J.

Lyon wrote for the majority in 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. (the second appeal);

VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403; 1891 Wisc. LEXIS 234

October 26, 1891, Argued; November 17, 1891, Decided

OPINION: LYON, J.

defendant (Δ) was George Putney not Hiram Putney;
plaintiff (Π) was Andrew Vosburg not Jonathan Vosburg Wermsker (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Father was Seth Vosburg not Andrew Vosburg Wermsker (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
legally material facts are munged in with irrelevant facts (parents, jobs, wealth);
legally material facts are munged ad hoc from both appellate actions;
the rule of law is entirely obfuscated;
procedural history and facts are intermingled;
issue and holding are munged, and thus incorrect (mixing actions);
most importantly, there are ZERO citations/references.

Due to the sheer volume of changes necessary to hack this into something accurate (or something that won't shame a 1L under professorial cross), I submit this as justification to reboot this topic with a ground-up rewrite (which I am working on now) Wermsker (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

I've completed the rewrite. Mixed audience targeting, I tried to follow these guiding principles:

accurate
informative
concise
student friendly

I was less interested in appealing to the "fully informed" audience that can just as easily read the full case.

I didn't reference page numbers because many editions exist for some of the casebooks. I err'd on the side of credibly verifiable.

While I go a bit deeper than any single casebook, there are some professors that have turned this one case into a full semester launch pad. So I didn't even try to mount a full analysis with all the potential forks.

If, upon reading this rewrite, you become violently ill or emotionally unstable [[File:|18px|link=]], take the appropriate measures to remedy your discomfort. ☯ wermsker (A T C) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:WisconsinSupremeCourtSeal.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is moot. [1] Wermsker (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]