Template:Infobox court case/testcases

Tennessee v. Scopes

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}	{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Tennessee v. Scopes Court Criminal Court of Tennessee Full case name The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes Decided July 21, 1925 Defense Clarence Darrow Citation None ECLI ECLI:NL:blabla Case history Subsequent action Scopes v. State (1926) Court membership Judge sitting John T. Raulston	Tennessee v. Scopes Court Criminal Court of Tennessee Full case name The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes Decided July 21, 1925 Defense Clarence Darrow Citation None ECLI ECLI:NL:blabla Case history Subsequent action Scopes v. State (1926) Court membership Judge sitting John T. Raulston

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}

{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick Court High Court of Australia Full case name Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick, Joseph Decided 10 December 2002 Citations [2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575, 194 ALR 433, 77 ALJR 255 ECLI ECLI:EU:blabla Case history Prior action Appeal from Supreme Court of Victoria Subsequent action none Court membership Judges sitting Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne & Callinan JJ Case opinions (7:0) Existing principles of defamation law are that legal proceedings should be undertaken in the place where the communication is received, not where the communication is sent from. This applies equally to internet communications, despite the new nature of the technology. (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ; Gaudron J concurring; Kirby J & Callinan J agreeing in separate judgments) (7:0) In this case, involving information published on the Internet in the United States and read in the State of Victoria, Australia, the suitable jurisdiction for a court action is Victoria. (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ; Gaudron J concurring; Kirby J & Callinan J agreeing in separate judgments)

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick Court High Court of Australia Full case name Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick, Joseph Decided 10 December 2002 Citations [2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575, 194 ALR 433, 77 ALJR 255 ECLI ECLI:EU:blabla Case history Prior action Appeal from Supreme Court of Victoria Subsequent action none Court membership Judges sitting Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne & Callinan JJ Case opinions (7:0) Existing principles of defamation law are that legal proceedings should be undertaken in the place where the communication is received, not where the communication is sent from. This applies equally to internet communications, despite the new nature of the technology. (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ; Gaudron J concurring; Kirby J & Callinan J agreeing in separate judgments) (7:0) In this case, involving information published on the Internet in the United States and read in the State of Victoria, Australia, the suitable jurisdiction for a court action is Victoria. (per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ; Gaudron J concurring; Kirby J & Callinan J agreeing in separate judgments)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (Tools)

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}	{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (Tools) Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales Decided November 10, 1947 (1947-11-10) Citation [1947] EWCA Civ 1 Court membership Judges sitting Lord Greene, Somervell LJ, Singleton J Keywords Judicial review	Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (Tools) Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales Decided November 10, 1947 (1947-11-10) Citation [1947] EWCA Civ 1 Court membership Judges sitting Lord Greene, Somervell LJ, Singleton J Keywords Judicial review

Foo vs Bar

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}

{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}

Foo vs Bar Court Foo Court Full case name Mr Foo Man vs Bar, Inc. Decided May 10, 1916 (1916-05-10) Citation 000 0101 01110 Transcript Transcript of the case Case history Prior action None Appealed from Foo vs Bar 1887 Appealed to Foo vs Bar 1932 Subsequent action Settled out of court Related action None Court membership Judges sitting Justice Lawman Case opinions Mr Foo Man was fined by the Foo court for having a silly name. Decision by Lawman Concurrence Sternfrogg Concur/dissent In. Decisiveness Dissent Lenent Keywords sandbox, testcase

Foo vs Bar Court Foo Court Full case name Mr Foo Man vs Bar, Inc. Decided May 10, 1916 (1916-05-10) Citation 000 0101 01110 Transcript Transcript of the case Case history Prior action None Appealed from Foo vs Bar 1887 Appealed to Foo vs Bar 1932 Subsequent action Settled out of court Related action None Court membership Judges sitting Justice Lawman Case opinions Mr Foo Man was fined by the Foo court for having a silly name. Decision by Lawman Concurrence Sternfrogg Concur/dissent In. Decisiveness Dissent Lenent Keywords sandbox, testcase

Test 5

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}

{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}

Abcd Court Abcd Full case name Abcd Argued 1 January, 1 March 19701 February – 1 March 1970 Reargued 1 January 19711 March–1 April 19711 February 19721 May–1 June 1972 Submitted 1 July 1973 Decided 2 July 1973 Citation Abcd Claim Abcd Case history Prior history Abcd Subsequent history Abcd Procedural history Abcd Holding Abcd Court membership Judge sitting Abcd Case opinions Per curiam Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Plurality Abcd, joined by Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Abcd took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Laws applied Abcd Superseded by Abcd Overruled by Abcd

Abcd Court Abcd Full case name Abcd Argued 1 January, 1 March 19701 February – 1 March 1970 Reargued 1 January 19711 March–1 April 19711 February 19721 May–1 June 1972 Submitted 1 July 1973 Decided 2 July 1973 Citation Abcd Claim Abcd Case history Prior history Abcd Subsequent history Abcd Procedural history Abcd Holding Abcd Court membership Judge sitting Abcd Case opinions Per curiam Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Majority Abcd, joined by Abcd Plurality Abcd, joined by Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Seriatim opinion Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concur/dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Concurrence Abcd Dissent Abcd, joined by Abcd Abcd took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Laws applied Abcd Superseded by Abcd Overruled by Abcd

Test 6

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}

{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}

name Court court Full case name full name Decided date decided Citation citations Transcript transcripts Case history Prior action prior actions Appealed from appealed from Appealed to appealed to Subsequent action subsequent actions Related action related actions Court membership Judges sitting judges Case opinions opinions Decision by decision by Concurrence concurring Concur/dissent concur/dissent Dissent dissenting Keywords keywords

name Court court Full case name full name Decided date decided Citation citations Transcript transcripts Case history Prior action prior actions Appealed from appealed from Appealed to appealed to Subsequent action subsequent actions Related action related actions Court membership Judges sitting judges Case opinions opinions Decision by decision by Concurrence concurring Concur/dissent concur/dissent Dissent dissenting Keywords keywords

International Military Tribunal

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox court case}}

{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}

International Military Tribunal View from above of the judges' bench at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Allied-occupied Germany. Indictment Conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity Started 20 November 1945 Decided 1 October 1946 Defendants 24 (see list) Witnesses 37 prosecution, 83 defense Case history Related actions Subsequent Nuremberg trials International Military Tribunal for the Far East Court membership Judges sitting Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet Union) Geoffrey Lawrence (UK) Francis Biddle (US) Donnedieu de Vabres (France) and deputies

International Military Tribunal View from above of the judges' bench at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Allied-occupied Germany. Indictment Conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity Started 20 November 1945 Decided 1 October 1946 Defendants 24 (see list) Witnesses 37 prosecution, 83 defense Case history Related actions Subsequent Nuremberg trials International Military Tribunal for the Far East Court membership Judges sitting Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet Union) Geoffrey Lawrence (UK) Francis Biddle (US) Donnedieu de Vabres (France) and deputies