Wikidata:Property proposal/Cases consolidated

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cases consolidated[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

DescriptionWhat other cases this case consolidated
Data typeItem
Domainlegal case (Q2334719)
Example 1Obergefell v. Hodges (Q19866992) -> Tanco v. Haslam (Q18211585), DeBoer v. Snyder (Q17001569), Bourke v. Beshear (Q17986031) [1]
Example 2Rucho v. Common Cause (Q65119498) -> Benisek v. Lamone (Q55605215) [2]
Example 3Nielsen v. Preap (Q65084520) -> Wilcox v. Khoury (Q66084659) [3]
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

Motivation[edit]

To allow linking court cases together when they are consolidated on appeal. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the maximum number of values likely to be here? Would it make more sense in the other direction (X case consolidated into Y rather than Y consolidates X?) ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I don't think there is a maximum. Would it make sense to create 2 properties, one for each direction? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
No, inverse properties are generally frowned on here. If it's possible that more than 1000 cases have been consolidated into one, that would cause trouble for the Wikidata UI, so the other direction would be better. If the maximum is likely a lot less, then either way is probably ok, whichever makes more sense for users. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not know much about this topic but intuitively I would agree with ArthurPSmith that the other direction could be more natural. I expect that a given case can only be consolidated by a small number of other cases (just like an article can only cite a small number of other papers), but there could be very influential cases which consolidated many other cases (similarly, there are highly cited articles). So just like we have cites (P2860) and not "cited by", I would create this property in the other direction. − Pintoch (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Pintoch: Actually, I have to disagree - for cases to be consolidated they have to have very similar question, and be heard at the same time by the same court. I'm okay with the other direction, but this that this would be better and clearer (Case A consolidated cases B, C, and D, instead of each of B, C, and D saying they were consolidated into A). --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (outdent) basically, for similar issues, the Supreme Court will hear and decide the cases together. If you look at the first page of the opinion for obergefell, it notes that the case was decided "*Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, also on certiorari to the same court." - sorry I couldn't find a good link. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportStudiesWorld (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, ArthurPSmith, DannyS712, StudiesWorld: ✓ Done: cases consolidated (P7162). − Pintoch (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
  2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
  3. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/16-1363_a86c.pdf