Talk:Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Untitled

The article states that Webster was moved by his own speech that tears formed at his eyes. Actually, it was John Marshall himself who was deeply moved. I am sure of it, since I read this interesting trivia in my AP Government textbook. That Webster was moved by his own speech is a clear vandalism.67.80.32.189 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who did Webster represent, where?

"The trustees thus hired Daniel Webster, who represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate...."

Its my understanding that when Webster was hired by the Trustees, he had not yet become a US Senator. He was a former member of the House of Representatives. Furthermore, when he later DID become a Senator, it was for the state of Massachusetts.

A little later, this article says that Webster was "at this time" the most famous Dartmouth alumnus. Isn't he still? Is there someone more famous to come out of those hallowed halls?

Background section

Unless this is following a standard format, Background should probably be moved to after Case and called Precendents. The way it read now, you have to read Case to understand what Background is talking about, so it's out-of-order. BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Land Grant

The allodial title article points here and says that the College retained its land grant title through this case. Does anybody know more about that? BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson

it says that the flethcer v peck case was handled by the michael jackson court. but the supreme court in 1810 was headed by john marshell. i am re-writing it and taking michael jackson out unless someone can figure it out. even if someone named jackson was heading the court then what is the point of throwing that in?

Webster

Yeah, Webster was hired by the former board of trustees to defend them (the trustees had been replaced by the state of New Hampshire's own trustees). I'm not sure about there being anyone more famous than Webster, though.

What distinction?

"The decision protected contracts against specifically state encroachments. More recently it has had the effect of safeguarding business enterprises from state governments’ dominion."

Some editor seems to be making a distinction between "encroachment" and "dominion" here. But I don't get it and would like it explained to me. --Christofurio 13:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Needs standard court case look

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden The bar on the right side that shows key facts - this case needs that. I am completely inexperienced at editing, sorry, but if someone who knows what they're doing could please add that bar, it would be helpful. Thanks. -Ricky28269

he made himself cry wtf?

the text in the article says ""Webster's speech in support of Dartmouth (which he described as "a small college," adding, "and yet there are those who love it") was so moving that it reportedly brought tears to Webster's eyes""

So his own speech was so moving he made himself cry?? is this just poor word choice or a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.100 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About that crying himself part...

My gov teacher told me that it was true. I was fairly surprised, but whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.32.189 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the actual essence of the case

This article made the front page of Wikipedia, yet I have to say it seems to be missing something important. Reading it, I still have not got the foggiest idea of what the case actually was about. I got the ending-- Dartmouth remained private-- but I have no idea who was doing what to whom or why. Something about a contract, between somebody unnamed and somebody else unnamed.

But what? Couldn't somebody summarize it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Syntax Error

The Infobox needs to be corrected; it's not displaying, just being written out as code. Alexanderaltman (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

Since nobody couldn't find a source for the following sentence from the last paragraph I removed it from the article: Today some still view Dartmouth as a problematic extension of individual contract rights to artificial corporate entities. Until somebody can actually attribute it to a reliable source it should stay out. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)