Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Throckmorton, Marshall v. Holmes and Graver v. Faurot

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

United States v. Throckmorton, Marshall v. Holmes, Graver v. Faurot

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that 125 years after the Seventh Circuit referred Graver v. Faurot to the Supreme Court to decide whether United States v. Throckmorton or Marshall v. Holmes controlled, the question is still open? Source: "In the absence of power to deal with the whole case, the question amounts to no more than an inquiry as to whether in our opinion there is an irreconcilable conflict between two of our previous judgments, and a request, if we hold that to be so, that we put an end to that conflict. We do not regard these as questions or propositions of law in a particular case on which we are required to give instruction", Graver v. Faurot, 162 U.S. 435, 438 (1896)

"The ambiguity lies in the dictum of Mr. Justice Harlan in the case of Marshall v. Holmes ... decided thirteen years after Throckmorton. Like Throckmorton, Marshall involved forged documents and perjured testimony introduced at trial. In Marshall, Mr. Justice Harlan stated that equity will provide relief from any judgment obtained through fraud where conscience requires relief and the complaining party is not at fault ... This appears to directly contradict the holding in Throckmorton, yet Throckmorton was cited as the authority for the dictum. The Court has never resolved the apparent conflict." Patel v. OMH Medical Center, 987 P.2d. 1185, 1196n28 (Okla. 1991).

Reviewed: Blue Chip Electronics
Comment: Since I am nominating a threefer here, I reviewed two other nominations as well: Ben Enwonwu's Daily Mirror sculptures and WTAF-TV (Indiana)

Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

All three articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - The only copyvio detections are to Supreme Court cases where the text is public domain and then transcribed, so these should be OK.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3