Wikidata:Property proposal/Cases consolidated

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

To allow linking court cases together when they are consolidated on appeal. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support David (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What is the maximum number of values likely to be here? Would it make more sense in the other direction (X case consolidated into Y rather than Y consolidates X?) ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: I don't think there is a maximum. Would it make sense to create 2 properties, one for each direction? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, inverse properties are generally frowned on here. If it's possible that more than 1000 cases have been consolidated into one, that would cause trouble for the Wikidata UI, so the other direction would be better. If the maximum is likely a lot less, then either way is probably ok, whichever makes more sense for users. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
•  Comment I do not know much about this topic but intuitively I would agree with ArthurPSmith that the other direction could be more natural. I expect that a given case can only be consolidated by a small number of other cases (just like an article can only cite a small number of other papers), but there could be very influential cases which consolidated many other cases (similarly, there are highly cited articles). So just like we have cites work (P2860) and not "cited by", I would create this property in the other direction. − Pintoch (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pintoch: Actually, I have to disagree - for cases to be consolidated they have to have very similar question, and be heard at the same time by the same court. I'm okay with the other direction, but this that this would be better and clearer (Case A consolidated cases B, C, and D, instead of each of B, C, and D saying they were consolidated into A). --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • • @DannyS712: I see. I think it would help to give here a short description of what this consolidation process actually is, potentially with links to the relevant Wikipedia pages (or other websites) explaining it. In which jurisdictions does it exist? What are the typical number of cases consolidated/consolidating? and so on. − Pintoch (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pintoch: I've only seen it in US courts (specifically federal courts). I'll try to find some links, but was about to get off of my computer. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pintoch:, see, eg, https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2018/03/scotus-consolidated-cases-retain-separate-identity-for-appealability.html --DannyS712 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @DannyS712: that link does not strike me as a very clear explanation of the concept… − Pintoch (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (outdent) basically, for similar issues, the Supreme Court will hear and decide the cases together. If you look at the first page of the opinion for obergefell, it notes that the case was decided "*Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, also on certiorari to the same court." - sorry I couldn't find a good link. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DannyS712: thanks, that is much clearer. − Pintoch (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  SupportStudiesWorld (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, ArthurPSmith, DannyS712, StudiesWorld:  Done: cases consolidated (P7162). − Pintoch (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
2. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
3. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/16-1363_a86c.pdf