Talk:Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Untitled

um....accoding to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, published by Columbia University Press, a lot of this is completely wrong, and the guy's name was Philip martin, not thomas

The actual text of the opinion states that Martin was Lord Fairfax's "nephew named Thomas Bryan Martin." Any other supposed errors? Postdlf 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

well actually the text of the opinion says that Thomas was the name of the defendant's uncle, i.e. the man who originally owned the land, Denny is the name of the defendant. Other than that it is a useful article, thanks.

Actually, you're all wrong. In Martin V. Hunter's Lessee, the land was originally owned by Lord Thomas Fairfax, who he willed to Denny Martin. Denny Martin brought suit against Hunter, but died, willing the land to his heir, Phillip Martin, who continued the suit. I am also somewhat curious as to how this was given a LOW assessment for the WikiProject Law, seeing as how it is one of the most historically important cases that the Supreme Court has tried. --98.214.64.139 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable issue

Martin vs. Hunter came after the state ignored the Fairfax's Devisee vs. Hunter's Lessee decision. Considering the significance and controversy of this "landmark" decision, I believe it is negligent not to mention that the state of Virginia effectively upheld the State Supreme Court decision. Martin did not sue the State of Virginia in Federal court for not upholding the ruling, and Hunter retained his rights to the property.

Basically, party A said party A is supreme, and party B said party B is supreme. B is still saying that B is supreme, but despite broader implications that have stood the test of time, the reality of that specific case was that A did manage to retain their sovereignty.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman; BA, MPAff, and JD from the University of Texas, MA and PhD in American History from the University of Virginia, and author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and other books / publications on the Supreme Court; was being interviewed on the radio recently (October 7, 2009, The Mike Church Show) and was discussing the outcome of this case. He mentioned that it is discussed extensively in the above mentioned book. I could not find further references to the aftermath of the case other than [1] which cites [2] as a source, but upon review does not actually SUPPORT that the STATE ignored Martin v. Hunter Lesee, just that the COURT ignored Fairfax's Devisee vs. Hunter's Lessee.

There have been many cases where states / governors have ignored federal supreme court decisions. As far as an encyclopedic entry about the case itself, implications of a case may be beyond the scope of the article. I expect that would be the argument against its inclusion, but as mentioned above, facts that have kept this landmark case a historical controversy should really be included. Considering the issue, and if this article exists because of the cases notability, this article lacks a NPOV to leave off with saying the Supreme Court won an argument against itself.--199.80.142.104 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to expand the article based on any reliable sources you have found and other editors will review; I'm probably not the only one who has this article in his watchlist. U.S. Supreme Court articles should have sections titled "subsequent jurisprudence," which explains how later court decisions have built upon, used, etc. this decision, and "subsequent developments," which is for what happened later to the facts of the case or for broader societal impact of the case outside of case law. I think all of what you describe above would fit into one of those two sections. Postdlf (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Close quotation without attribution

While it's of a PD text (the decision itself) a lot of text from this article is a direct quotation or close paraphrase of the decision text with no indication that it is one. This is somewhat problematic. I have my constitutional law final this week, else I'd be happy to BOLDly address this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. 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/20090124004401/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-hunters-lessee.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/martin-hunters-lessee.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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)