Talk:Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name and location of article edit
I've put the article under the title of the 9th Circuit Case. I did this because the Supreme Court decision was a mere per curiam affirmance, and I know that those are normally gathered by term in a single article. Since the vast majority of the article content will relate to the 9th Circuit case, I put it under the 9th Circuit name and I am using a 9th Circuit infobox. If folks think that a move to the Supreme Court case name is better, then I would be happy to support such a move. As of now, the name of the Supreme Court case redirects here. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Eastern District? edit
I am looking at Judge Hatter's November 2011 order ([1]), and it says, clear as day, "United States District Court Eastern District of California." This is despite the case having started in the Central District, where Hatter is judge, and every other reference I know of referring to the Central District. Anyone have a clue? Did Hatter's clerk just use the wrong template, or what? TJRC (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
new stuff edit
Someone better than me can add this:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/01/20/11-57137.pdf --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Kirtsaeng edit
This article needs to be rewritten DRASTICALLY in view of the Supreme Court's contrary decision in Kirtsaeng. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)