Template talk:Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can template(s) be conformed, to the MOS?[edit]

This template in In re Bilski doesn't add a comma but should do "May 8, 2008" according to the MOS:DATE. [While [e.g. argue] date in Bilski v. Kappos has a comma, with it's Infobox SCOTUS case"-template..] comp.arch (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cases with both panel and en banc opinions[edit]

I propose that some additional parameters be created for cases where a 3-judge panel publishes an opinion which is subsequently superseded by an en banc opinion. In this situation, there would be two sets of citations, judges, and opinions.

Current ways to handle this include (1) treating the en banc opinion as the "main" subject of the infobox and putting the panel decision citation in the prior history, or (2) vice-versa, by treating the panel decision as the main subject and putting the en banc citation in the subsequent history. However, these approaches are both limited in terms of fully breaking down the membership and opinions of both the panel and en banc court.

So the proposal would be to create new fields for en banc decisions, such as:

 |EnBancCitations=
 |EnBancJudges=
 |EnBancMajority=
 |EnBancJoinMajority=
 |EnBancConcurrence=
 |EnBancJoinConcurrence=
 |EnBancDissent=
 |EnBancJoinDissent=

It's a fairly big change and I'm not too comfortable messing with a widely-used template myself. Any thoughts? --LegalSkeptic (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change, but don't have the technical knowledge to add the parameters to the template. AHeneen (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is subsequent history BEFORE holding?[edit]

The subsequent parameter would be more appropriate after the holding in the case history section of the template. For an example, which prompted me to raise the issue here, see Microsoft Corp. v. United States an article with the title of the COA decision's case name that was appealed to the US Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed (and COA decision vacated) because a new law rendered the issue moot. It is odd to see the subsequent section mention the decision was later vacated and rendered moot before reaching the holding section that explains what the COA decided. AHeneen (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrence not displaying text[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report problems with this template, but I believe the first Concurrence parameter is broken. Inputted text is stored but doesn't displayed. Here are links to two pages affected by the problem: [1][2]. Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Docket number and "Statement opinion" parameters[edit]

I noticed this infobox doesn't have Docket No. and "Statement opinion" parameters. Please add one. It would be useful to do so. Kart2401real (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]