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 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
The Decision and precedent and Status as precedent sections (by the way, those section titles overlap) both contain a numbered list of three exceptions, but they don't match. Exceptions 1 and 3 in the former correspond to exceptions 1 and 2 in the latter, and the remaining exceptions are different (2. "harassment" vs. 3. "inadequate state forum"). Neither list is sourced. (The second one contains citations, but for individual points, not to show that this is a correct and complete list of exceptions.) Joriki (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The case itself only discussed bad faith prosecution and other "extraordinary circumstances". See[1] at 1006. The "Status as precedent" section accurately describes how the case has been interpreted by subsequent precedent. See, e.g., [2] at 1982-1988; see generally[3]. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
