Talk:Heydon's Case

No description of the case itself.

The Article for Heydon's Case outlines how the impact of the case being the creation of the 'mischief rule' for interpreting legislation but does not provide any information about the court case itself.

Who were the parties involved? (The Crown vs. Heydon? Heydon vs. Joe Blogg?) What was the case about? What was the result of the trial?

I think this would be basic information this article needs as right now it seems to be nothing more than a bit of background for the mischief rule. --I (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now the text is just a splurge lifted from the text of the decision. This is the kind of thing that might suit Wikisource, but it is not an encyclopaedic approach suitable for Wikipedia, especially considering that the text is 500 years old and the language rather archaic and dense and hard for the layman to understand. What it needs is a summary, not plagiarism. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Type of court

This article identifies the court in which Heydon's case was heard as the Exchequer Court, the Court in which the Lord Chancellor sat. But the article on Edward Coke identifies him as having been chief judge of the Court of Common Pleas and another common law court but not Lord Chancellor. Indeed, the Coke article has him returning to Parliament and then retiring to his estate to write after leaving the common law bench.

These two articles can not both be accurate. Which one is mistaken? If Heydon's case was heard in the Exchequer Court then it was not heard by a common law judge. If Coke heard the case then was it in a common law court or is there an appointment to the House of Lords and to the Lord Chancellorship not covered in the article?

— Mposlunq (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Above comment moved from article to here. — Richardguk (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Connection to mischief rule

As the article stands now, it's a little unclear as to how the mischief rule was applied to the case. What "mischief" was involved in the Act of Dissolution? How did the decision differ from what would have been made if the mischief rule hadn't been applied? It says "The ruling was based on an important discussion of the relationship of a statute to the pre-existing common law.", but doesn't go into any description about the details of that discussion, and how it relates to this particular case. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)