Talk:Floyd v. City of New York

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Defective citations, etc.[edit]

This page needs a massive updates in light of recent events, that's for sure. But the infobox at present claims:

Date decided 	November 23, 2011
Citations 	813 F.Supp.2d 457

Is that legit? 457 is the reporting of the partial summary judgement decision. But given that the case was ongoing after that (it was partial summary judgement), it doesn't quite seem right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkinson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 August 2013

I think that the section under "decisions" that states the City's motion for summary judgment was granted is incorrect... This sentence does not make sense: "The court granted the City of New York's motion for summary judgment on Floyd's Fourth Amendment claim on the grounds that a reasonable jury could find that it was objectively unreasonable for the officers to search Floyd based on a determination of reasonable suspicion." Doing so would likely mean either a grant of summary judgment for Floyd or a denial of summary judgment for the City. I don't know what the correct decision was, but I thought I'd point that out. -c. lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.21.143.60 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Floyd v. City of New York. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120328092707/http%3A//ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk to http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-the-face-of-stop-and-frisk,0,6920587.story

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes direly needed?[edit]

This article seems due for an update. The "Decisions" section doesn't include the 2nd Circuit's decision, which for some reason is in the "Status" section, which probably needs a new title and material. There are no cited sources or news articles regarding the 2nd Circuit's stay, removal of Scheindlin, and random reassignment of the case; their subsequent refusal to vacate; Di Blasio carrying through on his campaign promise to drop the City's appeal; etc.

Is there anyone who's spent time on this article who'd like to update it and add news citations, a link to the 2nd Circuit's decision, etc.? If not, I am happy to put in some time, but I'm new to this and pretty slow!

Thanks in advance. Tambourine60 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]