Talk:Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

POV tag

I have added the POV tag because of this reversion of my NPOV edit made without justification or explanation. This is the second article of mine that Jance/Jgwlaw has reverted for purely harassing reasons; see also the Fred Baron article[1] and the discussion here. -- TedFrank 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested corrections: Add a balancing sentence for this sentence: "Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse." - It needs to say what the bill's opponents said as in a news article. Also, you could say instead of "The Act accomplished two key goals of tort reform advocates" that the act was intended to accomplish these goals.199.245.32.11 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any objections if I add links to a piece I wrote on the subject?[2] -- TedFrank 06:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is balanced now (though not perfect) and the NPOV tag should be removed. I don't object to Ted Frank adding links to one of his articles on the subject in the further reading section. 69.43.128.132 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this sentence ambiguous: "Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something Republicans have historically protested . . . " I assume the intended meaning is that Republicans have historically protested the "expansion of federal jurisdiction" at "the expense of state's rights and federalism." Instead, it seems to say that Republicans have historically protested "state's rights and federalism." I don't have time to come up with a quick fix. Any suggestions? Travis325 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis325 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it ambiguous. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that passage implies what you think it does. I had no trouble immediately understanding what that sentence meant. The sentence is about the expansion of federal jurisdiction, and therefore the word "something" (that Republicans have historically protested) refers to that expansion of federal jurisdiction. The fact that this sentence has remained in the article unchanged for five years seems to underscore my point, but if other readers agree with Travis325 and find it ambiguous, I suppose the word "something" could be replaced with "a result that", which should remove all perceived ambiguity. Captain Quirk (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs section on notable SCOTUS CAFA cases

This article is rated "low-importance," which surprises me. There have been several important SCOTUS cases concerning CAFA in the last year or so; most recently, SCOTUS today reversed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that a class representative cannot defeat CAFA's federal-court jurisdiction by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages (because his stipulation does not bind the rest of the putative class). Here is the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1450_9olb.pdf. Here is the SCOTUSblog page on the case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1450_9olb.pdf. I think I will attempt to create a page for the case before contributing to a new section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papillonderecherche (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cjr_03.pdfBeisner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910230553/http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub7432.pdf to http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub7432.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214015340/http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/02/12/class_action/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/02/12/class_action/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)