Talk:Bryan v. Kennett

	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.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It appears that most of this article has been copied and pasted from the source text of the case. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class? Are you kidding me?[edit]

I have been a practicing lawyer in USA for some years. How did this article in its current form as I write this get a "B"? As someone else pointed out, it seems to have been largely copied out of a court document. Moreover it is hard to understand because the language is from a previous century. The part of the article that appears to have been added really does not get at the significance of this case. I understand that sometimes people copy stuff over to get a head start on an article and that furthermore this might not be a copyvio here because the court opinions are public documents. However, it doesn't make for any sort of a useful article much less a B-class one. When I see ratings like this it causes me to lose a lot of faith in the ratings system and just think of it as arbitrary ratings that are sometimes good and sometimes not. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked most of this and rewrote it into something readable that has more info than just a cut and paste of the opinion. It's certainly not B-class now either but it's way better than the last awful version was. It could use some more sources and analysis of the holding and its effects on international law, treaty law, property law, etc. which someone needs to dig out of secondary sources (probably law journal articles and law books, this isn't one of the Supremes' greatest hits). TheBlinkster (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]