Talk:International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Outline of this article and other similar articles[edit]

This and other articles would be more useful if the facts only contained facts. There is quite a bit of analysis and opinion as well as resulting law represented in the facts section. In my opinion the facts should be represented in a nearly list format and followed by an analysis section that interprets how these facts affected the case. There should be no fact listed that did not have an effect on the case, nor should there be any analysis of a fact not included in the facts. Then there should be a subsequent section referred to as analysis that includes the discussion represented as above. There should also be a section referred to as Rules of Law; here there would be a list of any rule of law referenced in the case as well as a citation for where it has been derived. All of the additional information about the evolution of law as related to the case could be presented in an additional section stating the effect of the case on law and its progression. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jstarin (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Shoe Co. v. Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822021856/http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1926-1948.html to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1926-1948.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]