An issue log for BenchBot's recent work. To see the current status of a task, see User:BenchBot/status.

Issues Edit

Pages too large Edit

The following pages were too large for bot upload, and were added manually:

Justice Roberts and Marshall Edit

It seems BenchBot is confusing Owen Roberts and John Roberts for authors of the Opinions, is their some way to change that. Owen Roberts was active in the 30s and 40s and Chief Justice John not until much later. Same thing with John Marshall and Thurgood Marshall. Wabbit98 talk, 11:12pm (PST), 22 August 2010

Houston v. Moore and the London Packet, United States v Smith, Green v Watkins Edit

Seem there is a case with the same name in volume 16, and volume 15, and volume 18, the opinions might have gotten mixed up. Might need to start thinking about the naming convention. United States v. Smith is in volume 499 and volume 18. Green v Watkins in voume 22 and volume 19. Wabbit98 talk 11:14pm(PST) 30 August 2010

In volumes 13-20 and 490-502, BenchBot skipped duplicate case names. In volume 21 and later, duplicate case names are disambiguated by the citation (e.g., New Jersey v. New York and New Jersey v. New York (31 U.S. 323)). We should start a list of duplicate case names from volumes 13-20 and 490-502, so BenchBot can return to upload the cases it skipped. Cheers, stephen (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Amendment links Edit

Benchbot/Wikify Cite Tool is creating some near-infinite loops of internal links for amendments. See Twining v. New Jersey. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Disabled amendment links. List of pages needing correction. stephen (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Benchbot ignoring fixed case names Edit

In some recently added volumes, Benchbot is ignoring the fixed case names and adding ones that have prefixes we've agreed are unnecessary (they're also almost never in the scanned reporter), and on top of that, it's capitalizing words like "of."

LegalSkeptic (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is caused by the WS list being out of sync with the source files from In Volume 383, there were duplicate editions of 383 U.S. 213—see 383.US.213.20_1.html and 383.US.213.20.html—that threw off BenchBot. I will work on error detection before the next run. stephen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Edit

BenchBot hasn't been very good lately about recognizing and splitting off concurrences and dissents. Most often it will miss them completely and leave them in the opinion of the court. Sometimes when it does recognize them, it messes up the name of the justice, like this: Estep v. United States/Dissent Hitz Burton. Is there anything you can do to improve the accuracy of this feature?

I noticed the middle name/initial was included in some dissent authors, it is fixed after Volume 328. Thanks, your list is helpful for finding patterns for concurrence/dissent splitting. Cheers, stephen (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Been splitting it manually when I see it in the cases I am going through. Wabbit98, 2:20pm (PST), 14 March 2011.
Thanks dude! I've been doing the same, but it's not my top priority (right now those are 1. fixing case name lists and 2. connecting newly added cases to their respective Wikipedia articles and vice-versa), so I've built up the backlog below. LegalSkeptic (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Legalskeptic someone needs to do that, I mean this will keep me busy for awhile plenty of things to do still like adding cases to the right Supreme Court Justice. Wabbit98, 10:07pm (PST), 14 March 2011.
Improved splitting, starting with Volume 334. Two questions:
  1. What do you think would be the best way to handle opinions that are not clearly labeled a dissent or a concurrence? For example, Hague v. CIO has sections that begin "Mr. Justice STONE," "Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS," and "Mr. Justice BUTLER," but there is not enough information for BenchBot to automatically (and accurately) determine the Justices' position. Would it be better to leave these opinions at the end of the opinion of the court, to be manually split, or should BenchBot apply some neutral page (such as Hague v. CIO/Opinion Stone) and then categorize them for human attention?
  2. Should single line concurrence and dissents be split? For example, should Johnson v. Zerbst include a page that just says "Mr. Justice REED concurs in the reversal."? That seems unnecessary to me.
Cheers, stephen (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. I think the second option is better. The SCOTUS case template has an option for "separate opinion." You could have BenchBot make indeterminate opinions separate opinions, and like you said, flag them for human attention. I think it will be easier to move an opinion when it's determined to be a concurrence or dissent than make a new subpage from scratch.
  2. I agree, that is unnecessary. There's no need for a separate subpage unless there is a dissenting opinion. All the one-line statements mean are that a justice voted against the result, but didn't write anything (or voted for the result, but didn't vote for the opinion of the court, and didn't write anything). LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Those should be labeled as Separate opinions, I ran into this problem in the Taney Court, many Separate opinions, at least two cases where it looks like there are about 6 different ones, more than the template can handle; I have set that case aside for the moment since I have enough to do. Legalskeptic is right about the one line dissent and concurrences you will find, they are just a quick summary if anyone disagreed or agreed with the Opinion, but did not bother to write anything and should not have its own separate page. Wabbit98 8:50am (PST), 16 March 2011.

concurrences and dissents Edit

I moved like 100 Dissents for Jr. (Brennan) and II (Harlan) that now need their sister pages edited to reflect those names and not Jr. & II. Search this move list while it's still fresh for the cases in trouble. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed almost all of the cases GO3 moved. stephen, you should make sure the same issue doesn't happen with Justice Powell (also a "Jr."), whose opinions are going to be added soon. LegalSkeptic (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
More corrections to be listed as they are compiled then moved — George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to burst anyone's bubble but there are plenty of cases in the Chase Court, the Waite Court, and possibly the Taney Court with this problem of middle initials or middle names in dissents. I just never added them because it was too depressing and didn't know how to fix it. Wabbit98, 8:02pm (PST), 25 March 2011

Dissent names with middle name/initial problems Edit

Fixed dissent names needing case refresh Edit

All cases between the lines have been moved in order to correct any middle-initial/middle name problems. Their sister pages need to be updated to reflect the new proper name. Once updated - please delete the matching listing from the above list. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

William O. Douglas
John Marshall Harlan II
  • None
Stephen Johnson Field

John Marshall Harlan

Joseph P. Bradley

Noah Haynes Swayne

Samuel Freeman Miller

David Josiah Brewer

Edward Douglass White

Rufus Wheeler Peckham

Henry Billings Brown

List of decisions with missing opinions Edit

Missing cases Edit

The follow-up to BenchBot is what is happening on this page. If you notice something awry, make a friendly note, and someone else or I will investigate. The green/yellow/red on the status page indicates where BenchBot has run, not that it has been validated. stephen (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

name citation source comments resolution
Gibbons v. Ogden (19 U.S. 448) 19 U.S. 448
George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission just goes to a disambiguation page without the case listed. Wabbit98, talk, 11:45pm (PST) 28 August 2010
The Star
Washburn v. Green 133 U.S. 30 OpenJurist located at Washburn v. Green (133 U.S. 30)
McGahey v. State of Virginia Bryan 135 U.S. 662 OpenJurist located at 135 U.S. 685 and Mcgahey v. State Of Virginia
McGahey v. State of Virginia 135 U.S. 662 OpenJurist duplicate of above
Beaupre v. Noyes 138 U.S. 397 OpenJurist located at 138 U.S. 402 and Beaupre '' '' v. Noyes '' '' ( )
Beaupre v. Noyes 138 U.S. 397 OpenJurist duplicate of above
Peake v. City of New Orleans, United States 139 U.S. 342 OpenJurist located at 139 U.S. 377 and Peake '' '' v. City Of New Orleans ( )united States '' '' Peake. Duplicate content, see here
Peake v. City of New Orleans 139 U.S. 342 OpenJurist duplicate of above
Illinois Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Wade 140 U.S. 65 OpenJurist - found
Illinois Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Wade 140 U.S. 70 OpenJurist duplicate of above? 2 cases improperly titled w/ one opinion - found
Iron Silver Min Company v. Mike Starr Gold Silver Min Company 143 U.S. 394 OpenJurist
Iron Silver Min Company v. Mike Starr Gold Silver Min Company 143 U.S. 394 OpenJurist duplicate of above?

Verification Edit

name comments resolution
Hirota v. MacArthur Noticed multiple Douglas concurrences
United States v. Jordan (342 U.S. 288) No content; same as United States v. Shannon (342 U.S. 288)?

Volume 21 Edit

I am in the BenchBot log adding cases and most of volume 21 is missing, it stops at 294 and then jumps to volume 22. Wabbit98 talk, 11:28pm (PST) 31 August 2010

The rest of volume 21 is now up. Cheers, stephen (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Volume 28 Edit

Missing the last few cases in volume 28, from page 320 to page 469. Wabbit98 talk 11:45pm(PST), 7 September 2010

Added. Good catch! stephen (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Volumes 94 & 95 Edit

Volume 94 and Volume 95 are incomplete. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now they should be complete. Thanks! stephen (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Volume 126 Edit

Skipped Vol. 126 - stephen (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Maryland v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Edit

There is a case in volume 89, but it goes to the case in volume 44, do not know where the material for volume 80 went. Wabbit98 talk 12:28am (PST), 24 October 2010

Including the citations rather than just a case name would help. Its also a way to double check that something really is missing and not just a typo or abbreviation. All I can gleam from the above is...
  • Volume 44 -- 44 U.S. 534 exists --- now disambiguated
  • Volume 80 -- ???? can't find anything to do with Maryland in 80; ( but 80 U.S. 270 had spelled Chicago wrong in the title though )
  • Volume 89 -- 89 U.S. 105 exists ( but missing dissents ) --- now disambiguated
update: I disambiguated the 2 cases that existed already but I can't figure out what case in Volume 80 needs to be added/edited.
George Orwell III (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

George, how do you create a disambiguation page? I could go in and start doing that as well with cases that have the same name. Wabbit98 talk 9:17am (PST), 24 October 2010

First you'll need to move or create the current case name using up a case title shared by more than one opinion so that it's corresponding citation is part of the case title (or article title if you prefer)
So Mary v. Road Company is moved to Mary vs. Road Company (34 U.S. 354) along with any subpages and talk pages it may have but do not select leave a redirect behind if you are given that option. Please verify you are moving the right case for the citation being added.
Once that case has been moved just recreate the article with the title name we needed and add like this:

Mary v. Road Company_______________________________________________
{{Disambiguation | category = [[Category:Case disambiguation pages]]}}

* [[Mary v. Road Company (34 U.S. 354)]], ( 11 L.Ed. 714 ), ( 3 How. 354 )
* [[Mary v. Road Company (69 U.S. 615)]], ( 22 L.Ed. 713 ), ( 22 How. 615 )
George Orwell III (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Source issues Edit

Issues found in BenchBot's source texts.

Improper paragraph includes syllabus text Edit

In some opinions, the date (<p class="date">) or other paragraphs include extraneous text.