User:BenchBot/log

An issue log for BenchBot's recent work. To see the current status of a task, see User:BenchBot/status.

Pages too large
The following pages were too large for bot upload, and were added manually:
 * Kirk v. Smith Penn/Opinion of the Court - 105kb
 * Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States/Opinion of the Court
 * Ricard v. Williams/Opinion of the Court - 96kb
 * Cohens v. Virginia/Opinion of the Court - 287kb
 * In Re the Amiable Isabella/Opinion of the Court - 157kb
 * Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward/Opinion of the Court - 311kb
 * Sturges v. Crowninshield/Opinion of the Court - 138kb
 * Evans v. Eaton - 108kb
 * Martin v. Hunter's Lessee/Opinion of the Court - 93kb
 * Pratt v. Thomas Law/Opinion of the Court - 96kb
 * The Nereide Bennett Master/Opinion of the Court 141kb
 * The Town of Pawlet v. Daniel Clark/Opinion of the Court - 100kb
 * The Schooner Andeline and Cargo/Opinion of the Court - 94kb
 * The Bank of the United States v. Dandridge/Opinion of the Court - 113kb
 * Ogden v. Saunders/Opinion of the Court - 343kb
 * Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria/Opinion of the Court - 112kb
 * Conard v. The Atlantic Insurance Company New York/Opinion of the Court - 183kb

Justice Roberts and Marshall
It seems BenchBot is confusing Owen Roberts and John Roberts for authors of the Opinions, is their some way to change that. Owen Roberts was active in the 30s and 40s and Chief Justice John not until much later. Same thing with John Marshall and Thurgood Marshall. Wabbit98 talk, 11:12pm (PST), 22 August 2010

Houston v. Moore and the London Packet, United States v Smith, Green v Watkins
Seem there is a case with the same name in volume 16, and volume 15, and volume 18, the opinions might have gotten mixed up. Might need to start thinking about the naming convention. United States v. Smith is in volume 499 and volume 18. Green v Watkins in voume 22 and volume 19. Wabbit98 talk 11:14pm(PST)  30 August 2010
 * In volumes 13-20 and 490-502, BenchBot skipped duplicate case names. In volume 21 and later, duplicate case names are disambiguated by the citation (e.g., New Jersey v. New York and New Jersey v. New York (31 U.S. 323)). We should start a list of duplicate case names from volumes 13-20 and 490-502, so BenchBot can return to upload the cases it skipped. Cheers, stephen (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Amendment links
Benchbot/Wikify Cite Tool is creating some near-infinite loops of internal links for amendments. See Twining v. New Jersey. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disabled amendment links. List of pages needing correction. stephen (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Benchbot ignoring fixed case names
In some recently added volumes, Benchbot is ignoring the fixed case names and adding ones that have prefixes we've agreed are unnecessary (they're also almost never in the scanned reporter), and on top of that, it's capitalizing words like "of."

LegalSkeptic (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Volume 383, e.g.:
 * Mishkin v. State Of New York,
 * A Book Named 'john Cleland's Memoirs Of A Woman Of Pleasure' v. Attorney General Of Commonwealth Of Massachusetts
 * Volume 395
 * This is caused by the WS list being out of sync with the source files from public.resource.org. In Volume 383, there were duplicate editions of 383 U.S. 213—see 383.US.213.20_1.html and 383.US.213.20.html—that threw off BenchBot. I will work on error detection before the next run. stephen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing
BenchBot hasn't been very good lately about recognizing and splitting off concurrences and dissents. Most often it will miss them completely and leave them in the opinion of the court. Sometimes when it does recognize them, it messes up the name of the justice, like this: Estep v. United States/Dissent Hitz Burton. Is there anything you can do to improve the accuracy of this feature?
 * I noticed the middle name/initial was included in some dissent authors, it is fixed after Volume 328. Thanks, your list is helpful for finding patterns for concurrence/dissent splitting. Cheers, stephen (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Been splitting it manually when I see it in the cases I am going through. Wabbit98, 2:20pm (PST), 14 March 2011.
 * Thanks dude! I've been doing the same, but it's not my top priority (right now those are 1. fixing case name lists and 2. connecting newly added cases to their respective Wikipedia articles and vice-versa), so I've built up the backlog below. LegalSkeptic (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Legalskeptic someone needs to do that, I mean this will keep me busy for awhile plenty of things to do still like adding cases to the right Supreme Court Justice. Wabbit98, 10:07pm (PST), 14 March 2011.
 * Improved splitting, starting with Volume 334. Two questions:
 * What do you think would be the best way to handle opinions that are not clearly labeled a dissent or a concurrence? For example, Hague v. CIO has sections that begin "Mr. Justice STONE," "Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS," and "Mr. Justice BUTLER," but there is not enough information for BenchBot to automatically (and accurately) determine the Justices' position. Would it be better to leave these opinions at the end of the opinion of the court, to be manually split, or should BenchBot apply some neutral page (such as Hague v. CIO/Opinion Stone) and then categorize them for human attention?
 * Should single line concurrence and dissents be split? For example, should Johnson v. Zerbst include a page that just says "Mr. Justice REED concurs in the reversal."? That seems unnecessary to me.
 * Cheers, stephen (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the second option is better. The SCOTUS case template has an option for "separate opinion."  You could have BenchBot make indeterminate opinions separate opinions, and like you said, flag them for human attention. I think it will be easier to move an opinion when it's determined to be a concurrence or dissent than make a new subpage from scratch.
 * I agree, that is unnecessary. There's no need for a separate subpage unless there is a dissenting opinion.  All the one-line statements mean are that a justice voted against the result, but didn't write anything (or voted for the result, but didn't vote for the opinion of the court, and didn't write anything). LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those should be labeled as Separate opinions, I ran into this problem in the Taney Court, many Separate opinions, at least two cases where it looks like there are about 6 different ones, more than the template can handle; I have set that case aside for the moment since I have enough to do.  Legalskeptic is right about the one line dissent and concurrences you will find, they are just a quick summary if anyone disagreed or agreed with the Opinion, but did not bother to write anything and should not have its own separate page.  Wabbit98 8:50am (PST), 16 March 2011.

concurrences and dissents
I moved like 100 Dissents for Jr. (Brennan) and II (Harlan) that now need their sister pages edited to reflect those names and not Jr. & II. Search this move list while it's still fresh for the cases in trouble. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed almost all of the cases GO3 moved. stephen, you should make sure the same issue doesn't happen with Justice Powell (also a "Jr."), whose opinions are going to be added soon. LegalSkeptic (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More corrections to be listed as they are compiled then moved — George Orwell III ( talk ) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to burst anyone's bubble but there are plenty of cases in the Chase Court, the Waite Court, and possibly the Taney Court with this problem of middle initials or middle names in dissents. I just never added them because it was too depressing and didn't know how to fix it. Wabbit98, 8:02pm (PST), 25 March 2011

Dissent names with middle name/initial problems

 * Author: Brennan
 * Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers/Dissent Jr.


 * Author: Harlan
 * Hellenic Lines Limited v. Rhoditis/Dissent II
 * Wiseman v. Massachusetts/Dissent II
 * Bloss v. Dykema/Dissent II

Fixed dissent names needing case refresh
All cases between the lines have been moved in order to correct any middle-initial/middle name problems. Their sister pages need to be updated to reflect the new proper name. Once updated - please delete the matching listing from the above list. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Author: William O. Douglas
 * Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Harmon/Dissent Douglas
 * Kann v. United States/Dissent Douglas
 * McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Company/Dissent Douglas
 * Snowden v. Hughes/Dissent Douglas
 * Thomson v. United States/Dissent Douglas
 * Davies Warehouse Company v. Bowles/Dissent Douglas
 * Simpson Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Dissent Douglas
 * Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Company/Dissent Douglas
 * Merchants National Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Dissent Douglas
 * Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania/Dissent Douglas
 * Harris v. Zion Savings Bank & Trust Company/Dissent Douglas
 * United States v. Rice (327 U.S. 742)/Dissent Douglas
 * Nippert v. City of Richmond/Dissent Douglas


 * Author: John Marshall Harlan II
 * None


 * Author: Stephen Johnson Field
 * Miller v. United States (78 U.S. 268)/Dissent Field
 * United States v. Circuit Judges/Dissent Field
 * Tyler v. Defrees/Dissent Field
 * Henderson's Distilled Spirits/Dissent Field
 * Barnes v. District of Columbia/Dissent Field
 * Leavenworth Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company v. United States/Dissent Field
 * Newhall v. Sanger/Dissent Field
 * Stone v. Wisconsin/Dissent Field
 * Cawood Patent/Dissent Field
 * Beckwith v. Bean/Dissent Field
 * Jackson v. Ludeling Vicksburg Shreveport and Texas Railroad Company/Dissent Field
 * Central Pacific Company v. Nevada/Dissent Field


 * Author: John Marshall Harlan
 * United States v. Clark (96 U.S. 37)/Dissent Harlan
 * Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt/Dissent Harlan
 * Fisk v. Henarie/Dissent Harlan
 * Beley v. Naphtaly/Dissent Harlan Dissent Missing
 * Cass Farm Company v. Detroit/Dissent Harlan
 * Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass/Dissent Harlan
 * Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537)/Dissent Marshall Harlan duplicate; pls update Plessy v. Ferguson/Dissent Harlan instead.


 * Author: Joseph P. Bradley
 * Blyew v. United States/Dissent Bradley
 * Ward v. United States (81 U.S. 28)/Dissent Bradley
 * Miller v. The State (82 U.S. 478)/Dissent Bradley
 * Tweed's Case/Dissent Bradley
 * Crapo v. Kelly/Dissent Bradley
 * Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Peniston/Dissent Bradley
 * Dollar Savings Bank v. United States/Dissent Bradley
 * Coit v. Robinson/Dissent Bradley
 * Piatt's Administrator v. United States/Dissent Bradley
 * Gaines v. Fuentes/Dissent Bradley
 * Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company/Dissent Bradley
 * Doyle v. Continental Insurance Company/Dissent Bradley
 * County of Cass v. Johnston/Dissent Bradley
 * Hitchcock v. Galveston/Dissent Bradley
 * Stewart v. Sonneborn/Dissent Bradley


 * Author: Noah Haynes Swayne
 * Bartemeyer v. Iowa/Dissent Swayne
 * Roberts v. United States/Dissent Swayne
 * United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (98 U.S. 569)/Dissent Swayne


 * Author: Samuel Freeman Miller
 * Woodson v. Murdock/Dissent Miller
 * Hoover Assignee v. Wise/Dissent Miller
 * Humboldt Township v. Long/Dissent Miller
 * Sage v. Central Railroad Company of Iowa/Dissent Miller
 * Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company v. United States/Dissent Miller
 * County of Callaway v. Foster/Dissent Miller
 * Clark v. United States (95 U.S. 539)/Dissent Miller
 * Murray v. Charleston/Dissent Miller
 * Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith/Dissent Miller


 * Author: David Josiah Brewer
 * Hicks v. United States/Dissent Brewer
 * Eldridge v. Trezevant/Dissent Brewer
 * Texas Railway Company v. Archibald/Dissent Brewer
 * Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Eubank/Dissent Brewer
 * Nelson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company/Dissent Brewer
 * Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Parker/Dissent Brewer
 * United States v. Tuck/Dissent Brewer
 * San Francisco National Bank v. Dodge/Dissent Brewer


 * Author:Edward Douglass White
 * Weir v. Norman/Dissent White
 * United States v. Loughrey/Dissent White
 * The Pedro/Dissent White
 * Freeport Water Company v. Freeport/Dissent White
 * Danville Water Company v. Danville/Dissent White
 * Rogers Park Water Company v. Fergus/Dissent White
 * Dooley v. United States/Dissent White
 * Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company (185 U.S. 403)/Dissent White
 * United States v. Lynah/Dissent White
 * Board or Directors of the Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois Samuel B Raymond/Dissent White
 * Snyder v. Bettman/Dissent White
 * Kean v. Calumet Canal Improvement Company/Dissent White
 * Northern Securities Company v. United States (193 U.S. 197)/Dissent White
 * Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Dixon/Dissent White
 * United States v. Martinez (195 U.S. 469)/Dissent White
 * McClaine v. Rankin/Dissent White
 * Hafemann v. Gross/Dissent White
 * South Carolina v. United States/Dissent White


 * Author: Rufus Wheeler Peckham
 * Woodruff v. Mississippi/Dissent Peckham
 * Burlington Gaslight Company v. Burlington C. Railroad/Dissent Peckham
 * McCullough v. Virginia/Dissent Peckham


 * Author: Henry Billings Brown
 * Cates v. Allen/Dissent Brown
 * United States v. Rodgers/Dissent Brown
 * The Carib Prince/Dissent Brown
 * Compagnie Francaise De Navigation A Vapeur v. State Board Of Health Louisiana/Dissent Brown
 * United States v. Taylor (188 U.S. 283)/Dissent Brown
 * Schuyler National Bank v. Gadsden/Dissent Brown
 * The Eliza Lines/Dissent Brown
 * Tampa Waterworks Company v. Tampa/Dissent Brown

List of decisions with missing opinions

 * Beauharnais v. Illinois
 * Beley v. Naphtaly/Dissent Harlan Dissent Missing
 * Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Read
 * National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
 * I could not find McReynold's concurrence in the source. stephen (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the breakdown & spread of the opinions to the notes section (good luck with that one) — George Orwell III ( talk ) 09:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince v. Massachusetts
 * Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Company
 * United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
 * United States v. Gilmore (372 U.S. 39)/Opinion of the Court
 * Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer
 * Zorach v. Clauson

Missing cases
The follow-up to BenchBot is what is happening on this page. If you notice something awry, make a friendly note, and someone else or I will investigate. The green/yellow/red on the status page indicates where BenchBot has run, not that it has been validated. stephen (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Volume 21
I am in the BenchBot log adding cases and most of volume 21 is missing, it stops at 294 and then jumps to volume 22. Wabbit98 talk,  11:28pm (PST)  31 August 2010
 * The rest of volume 21 is now up. Cheers, stephen (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Volume 28
Missing the last few cases in volume 28, from page 320 to page 469. Wabbit98 talk  11:45pm(PST), 7 September 2010
 * Added. Good catch! stephen (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Volumes 94 & 95
Volume 94 and Volume 95 are incomplete. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now they should be complete. Thanks! stephen (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Volume 126
Skipped Vol. 126 - stephen (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Maryland v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
There is a case in volume 89, but it goes to the case in volume 44, do not know where the material for volume 80 went. Wabbit98 talk 12:28am (PST), 24 October 2010
 * Including the citations rather than just a case name would help. Its also a way to double check that something really is missing and not just a typo or abbreviation. All I can gleam from the above is...
 * Volume 44 -- 44 U.S. 534 exists --- now disambiguated
 * Volume 80 -- ???? can't find anything to do with Maryland in 80; ( but 80 U.S. 270 had spelled Chicago wrong in the title though )
 * Volume 89 -- 89 U.S. 105 exists ( but missing dissents ) --- now disambiguated
 * I disambiguated the 2 cases that existed already but I can't figure out what case in Volume 80 needs to be added/edited.

George Orwell III (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

George, how do you create a disambiguation page? I could go in and start doing that as well with cases that have the same name. Wabbit98 talk 9:17am (PST), 24 October 2010


 * First you'll need to move or create the current case name using up a case title shared by more than one opinion so that it's corresponding citation is part of the case title (or article title if you prefer)


 * So Mary v. Road Company is moved to Mary vs. Road Company (34 U.S. 354) along with any subpages and talk pages it may have but do not select if you are given that option. Please verify you are moving the right case for the citation being added.
 * Once that case has been moved just recreate the article with the title name we needed and add like this:

Mary v. Road Company _______________________________________________

George Orwell III (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Source issues
Issues found in BenchBot's source texts.

Improper paragraph includes syllabus text
In some opinions, the date or other paragraphs include extraneous text.
 * 156 U.S. 1 - source
 * 154 U.S. 116 - source (extra text in "parties" paragraph, too)