Talk:Gilbert v. California

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	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.

Who joined what part of this opinion?

Obviously, this is a fractured decision, and different justices joined different portions of the majority opinion. However, there seem to be contradictions between the statements in the U.S. Reports as to what portions they joined and the actual opinions expressed in the case.

Namely:

1. There is a sentence at the end of the opinion stating "The Chief Justice joins this opinion except for Part III, from which he dissents for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas.

However, later on, it is noted that Chief Justice Warren also joined the opinion of Justice Fortas, which dissented from Part I of the majority decision (the part which rejected the petitioner's challenge to the handwriting exemplar). Therefore, Warren necessarily also did not join Part I.

2. Justice Douglas states in his opinion: "...I agree with the Court's opinion except for Part I", and notes his agreement with Justices Black's and Fortas' dissents on this point. At the same time, Douglas' opinion is directed towards deciding the issue in Part III of the majority decision (which was dismissed there as improvidently granted). That means he also necessarily does not agree with Part III of the majority opinion, and does not join it.

I edited the infobox to reflect what I understand to be the justices' actual stated positions, as opposed to those ascribed to them by the Reporter of Decisions.

Does anyone object to my interpretation of the case, or to my edit? LunaticLarry (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]