Jump to content

Template:Infobox court case/testcases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee v. Scopes

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Tennessee v. Scopes
CourtCriminal Court of Tennessee
Full case name The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
DecidedJuly 21, 1925
DefenseClarence Darrow
CitationNone
ECLIECLI:NL:blabla
Case history
Subsequent actionScopes v. State (1926)
Court membership
Judge sittingJohn T. Raulston
Tennessee v. Scopes
CourtCriminal Court of Tennessee
Full case name The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
DecidedJuly 21, 1925
DefenseClarence Darrow
CitationNone
ECLIECLI:NL:blabla
Case history
Subsequent actionScopes v. State (1926)
Court membership
Judge sittingJohn T. Raulston

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick, Joseph
Decided10 December 2002
Citations[2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575, 194 ALR 433, 77 ALJR 255
ECLIECLI:EU:blabla
Case history
Prior actionAppeal from Supreme Court of Victoria
Subsequent actionnone
Court membership
Judges sittingGleeson 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
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick, Joseph
Decided10 December 2002
Citations[2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575, 194 ALR 433, 77 ALJR 255
ECLIECLI:EU:blabla
Case history
Prior actionAppeal from Supreme Court of Victoria
Subsequent actionnone
Court membership
Judges sittingGleeson 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)

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (Tools)
CourtCourt of Appeal of England and Wales
DecidedNovember 10, 1947 (1947-11-10)
Citation[1947] EWCA Civ 1
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Greene, Somervell LJ, Singleton J
Keywords
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (Tools)
CourtCourt of Appeal of England and Wales
DecidedNovember 10, 1947 (1947-11-10)
Citation[1947] EWCA Civ 1
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Greene, Somervell LJ, Singleton J
Keywords

Foo vs Bar

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Foo vs Bar
CourtFoo Court
Full case name Mr Foo Man vs Bar, Inc.
DecidedMay 10, 1916 (1916-05-10)
Citation000 0101 01110
TranscriptTranscript of the case
Case history
Prior actionNone
Appealed fromFoo vs Bar 1887
Appealed toFoo vs Bar 1932
Subsequent actionSettled out of court
Related actionNone
Court membership
Judges sittingJustice Lawman
Case opinions
Mr Foo Man was fined by the Foo court for having a silly name.
Decision byLawman
ConcurrenceSternfrogg
Concur/dissentIn. Decisiveness
DissentLenent
Keywords
sandbox, testcase
Foo vs Bar
CourtFoo Court
Full case name Mr Foo Man vs Bar, Inc.
DecidedMay 10, 1916 (1916-05-10)
Citation000 0101 01110
TranscriptTranscript of the case
Case history
Prior actionNone
Appealed fromFoo vs Bar 1887
Appealed toFoo vs Bar 1932
Subsequent actionSettled out of court
Related actionNone
Court membership
Judges sittingJustice Lawman
Case opinions
Mr Foo Man was fined by the Foo court for having a silly name.
Decision byLawman
ConcurrenceSternfrogg
Concur/dissentIn. Decisiveness
DissentLenent
Keywords
sandbox, testcase

Test 5

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
Abcd
CourtAbcd
Full case name Abcd
Argued1 January, 1 March 19701 February – 1 March 1970
Reargued1 January 19711 March–1 April 19711 February 19721 May–1 June 1972
Submitted1 July 1973
Decided2 July 1973
CitationAbcd
ClaimAbcd
Case history
Prior historyAbcd
Subsequent historyAbcd
Procedural historyAbcd
Holding
Abcd
Court membership
Judge sittingAbcd
Case opinions
Per curiam
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
PluralityAbcd, joined by Abcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, 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
CourtAbcd
Full case name Abcd
Argued1 January, 1 March 19701 February – 1 March 1970
Reargued1 January 19711 March–1 April 19711 February 19721 May–1 June 1972
Submitted1 July 1973
Decided2 July 1973
CitationAbcd
ClaimAbcd
Case history
Prior historyAbcd
Subsequent historyAbcd
Procedural historyAbcd
Holding
Abcd
Court membership
Judge sittingAbcd
Case opinions
Per curiam
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
MajorityAbcd, joined by Abcd
PluralityAbcd, joined by Abcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
Seriatim opinionAbcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
Concur/dissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, joined by Abcd
ConcurrenceAbcd
DissentAbcd, 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

[edit]
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox court case}}{{Infobox court case/sandbox}}
name
Courtcourt
Full case name full name
Decideddate decided
Citationcitations
Transcripttranscripts
Case history
Prior actionprior actions
Appealed fromappealed from
Appealed toappealed to
Subsequent actionsubsequent actions
Related actionrelated actions
Court membership
Judges sittingjudges
Case opinions
opinions
Decision bydecision by
Concurrenceconcurring
Concur/dissentconcur/dissent
Dissentdissenting
Keywords
keywords
name
Courtcourt
Full case name full name
Decideddate decided
Citationcitations
Transcripttranscripts
Case history
Prior actionprior actions
Appealed fromappealed from
Appealed toappealed to
Subsequent actionsubsequent actions
Related actionrelated actions
Court membership
Judges sittingjudges
Case opinions
opinions
Decision bydecision by
Concurrenceconcurring
Concur/dissentconcur/dissent
Dissentdissenting
Keywords
keywords

International Military Tribunal

[edit]
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.
IndictmentConspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity
Started20 November 1945
Decided1 October 1946
Defendants24 (see list)
Witnesses37 prosecution, 83 defense
Case history
Related actionsSubsequent Nuremberg trials
International Military Tribunal for the Far East
Court membership
Judges sitting and deputies
International Military Tribunal
View from above of the judges' bench at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Allied-occupied Germany.
IndictmentConspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity
Started20 November 1945
Decided1 October 1946
Defendants24 (see list)
Witnesses37 prosecution, 83 defense
Case history
Related actionsSubsequent Nuremberg trials
International Military Tribunal for the Far East
Court membership
Judges sitting and deputies