Talk:Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.

[edit] Bogosity meter tripped

The story in this section sounds suspicious.Even it this *weren't* an accurate precedent surely there would be other supreme court cases on the topic.Roadrunner 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Roadrunner, your "Bogosity meter" was accurate. The article was almost completely false. The case did NOT create the doctrine of corporate personhood, nor has any court misunderstood it to mean that. The case DID apply the Fourteenth Amendment to "juristic persons." This is NOT a mistaken reading, that's what the case did. I don't know where the original writer got information on the private discussion between Supreme Court justices and their clerks. I've tried to clean it up some--Bibliophylax 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Can someone revert this to the last version by User:Bibliophylax? I'm not very good at this. >.> --AgentCDE 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)