Talk:Alabama v. North Carolina

DYK

• ... that in 2010 the United States Supreme Court heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• ... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• ... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case over waste management? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• ... that in 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States heard Alabama v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case involving five different U.S. states about how to throw things away? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• ... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste management facility....and wanted their money back? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• ... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste management facility....and wanted their money back? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The article looks in good order - interesting story, material cited and written neutrally and of size, but there must be a way to word the above hook more snazzily! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Would you be willing to help with that? I have never touched DYK before --DannyS712 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: ok I have had a go at writing a concise lead here. Does that summarise the facts well enough? Please change if I got it wrong... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

How about:

• ... that the 2010 United States Supreme Court case Alabama v. North Carolina came about after four states paid North Carolina $80 million for a failed waste facility....and wanted their money back?

or something catchy like that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: how about the last one I put above? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I like that. Recommend mainspacing and nominating....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber:  Done would you be willing to review the article and assess it? I had it as "NA" because it was in my userspace, but it should probably get assessed (I'd say B or C, but since I wrote it I have a COI). Thanks for all the help. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a C - is there anything on precedents or similar cases? Also legacy? Was it widely reported? Were there political ramifications? Also I don't get how far talks progressed on the facility...did it get a possible location etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Image

Can anyone figure out how to add an image (File:Fig040.gif) with the caption "Current Interstate Compacts, including the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, the subject of this case." without messing everything up? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

More detail?

I believe this article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did — more than just saying the court "overruled all of the objections to the special master's reports". What legal principles were brought into play as part of the reasoning? Also, since this case happened in 2010, I would assume there is some amount of subsequent history to be told (i.e., what happened after the decision, and whether there was any followup litigation). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)