Talk:Reed v. Reed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tschoultz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significance[edit]

Earlier this said that this was the first case ruling that the Fourteenth applies to women. This is patently false. Women were equally protected (and not) from racial discrimination, the primary use of the Fourteenth up to this time. Women were not somehow foreign to the Fourteenth. However, it IS the first time SCOTUS rules that equal protection means that governmental action cannot give different treatment under law (or color of law) based on legal sex. Thus I changed the ridiculously misleading wording about this being "the first case ruling that the Fourteenth applies to women" to something much more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Court Rulings[edit]

I cannot find the the case which this entire entry is all about, a docket number would help. 404 is not the docket number and because of it's Apache server error coincidence, some may be lead to believe it is a fictional court case.Dirtclustit (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After following the links used to cite this court case, it seems that Westlaw is possible the only database with verifiable records. Dirtclustit (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the problem is. Under "External links" you'll find 4 URLs for the decision. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the references I am speaking of Bmclaughlin9, if you have a subscription to Westlaw, which is a database that has all recorded rulings and only actual, legitimate, recognized United States Federal and State Courts you will immediately understand why non-reputable online databases are like citing a tabloid as a reference to assertions of facts in an article. If you do not have a subscription any University with a Law School will have a Law Library which anyone can go to and research cases with actual, legitimate docket numbers and be 100% sure the info obtained is not in any way fabricated.Dirtclustit (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FindLaw is owned by Thomson Reuters, as reputable as can be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there must be some law about being able to post docket numbers for free then I take it? Otherwise, if they are a legitimate reference source, why not list key information so the that is no reasonable doubt if a person wishes to verify the source? I will leave this be for now, in fact I should apologize for wasting your time as this is likely a point I should be bringing up elsewhere in the wiki forum. If it isn't obvious, I am new here. Thanks for your input, I am sure there is something simple that is just a matter of me not seeing itDirtclustit (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]