Talk:Old Court-New Court controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Old Court-New Court controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 21, 2008.
February 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Kentucky Portal
Old Court-New Court controversy is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] Formation of the New Court - Fining Sneed

Is the amount of the fine correct "ten POUNDS". Surely by the 1820s, the dollar would be the currency in use? --Yendor1958 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody found this more odd than me, but that's what the source says.[1] It's near the bottom of the first column on that page. Harrison is one of the preeminent Kentucky historians, so I trust his work. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] source

This topic came up a lot in the research I did in writing the Louisville and Portland Canal article, I confess I might have glossed over it a bit. Anyway, the main source I used in that article:

Trescott, Paul B. (March 1958). "The Louisville and Portland Canal Company, 1825-1874". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 44 (4): 686-708.

Has probably everything you'd want to know about the topic as it related to the canal. The article is on JSTOR if you have access. --W.marsh 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wish I did. I'll see if I can find it elsewhere. I wonder if I can ever expand this article enough to make it an FA? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm maybe. There's probably a lot in this source to expand with... the effect the court split had in delaying the canal was pretty important. I can send you a copy of the source if you want. --W.marsh 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That'd be awesome. How would you like to get it to me? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just send me a Wikipedia e-mail (use the 'email user' thing) and I'll reply with the attachment. --W.marsh 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold comment

Just one thing before I pass this: I feel that the following paragraph needs background on what the cases concerned, rather than merely the decisions. Other than that, this is a fantastic article well on its way to FAC.

In all, the New Court heard 77 cases during the Old Court-New Court controversy. In the April 1829 case of Hildreth's Heirs v. McIntire's Devisees, the reconstituted Court of Appeals declared all of these decisions void. In the later case of Smith v. Overstreet’s Adm’r, the court formally ruled that the decisions were not part of the common law of Kentucky.

Tell me when done. Cheers, Kakofonous (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately, I cannot find more than the cited passing reference to either case. I'm sure something exists in a book of Kentucky state law somewhere, but I'll have to have time to find it, and I'm leaving on a business trip to Denver, Colorado this weekend. Either the article will have to pass or fail on its own merits as-is, or it will have to remain on hold for probably three weeks at least. I'll post the issue at WikiProject Kentucky and see if someone there can help. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to worry, only a small issue. The article is definitely of GA quality despite that, and I am passing it. Once again, excellent job! Kakofonous (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)