Talk:Muller v. Oregon

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"A Few Suggested Edits for Sexist Portland Wikipedia Pages: We can't make history better, but at least we can make it more true". Willamette Week. March 2, 2016. Retrieved March 2, 2016.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muller v. Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106220725/http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/events_muller.html to http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/events_muller.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Lede; which contract protections?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's unclear which section of the Constitution was used in the decision: the Freedom of contract inherent in due process clause of 14th Amendment or the Article I Contracts Clause. The revert to status quo is procedural in absence of good information, not a judgment on the merits. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Possible edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems that this article is written in a way that is quite confusing and possibly contains too much (or irrelevant) information, especially in the opening section. It also contains some stylistic issues (Quote formatting, for example, is inconsistent), along with general grammatical and sentence structure problems (The final sentence of the first paragraph contains four semicolons). I don't think I have adequate enough experience editing Wikipedia to make these substantial changes, so I wanted to make sure to make these issues aware to anyone who would possibly be able to fix them. HonoraryGlass (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic