Talk:Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.

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.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

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

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that U.S. courts cannot freeze a defaulting debtor's foreign assets before trial, said the Supreme Court in Grupo Mexicano (1999), because the English Lord Chancellor didn't do that 210 years earlier?

Source: Vanderbilt Law Review p. 1010; Indiana Law Journal p. 234–35

ALT1: ... that because the English Lord Chancellor didn't freeze assets before trial in 1789, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1999 that U.S. courts can't either?
Reviewed:

Created by SilverLocust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

SilverLocust 💬 05:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

New enough (draft), long enough, no QPQ needed. A couple of paragraphs lack citations, although they read as if they might simply use a duplicate of other existing citations. Earwig gives a high value, but this seems to be mostly quotations. If there is another way to word "converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction" that may be useful, but if not, I have not found copyvio. The hook seems interesting from a common law perspective, but I am concerned the language does not easily track the article which may make it difficult for readers to find. For example, "freeze" does not appear in the article, neither does "Lord Chancellor". I do think it is in the sources given here, although I cannot access the source in the article. This should be a simple fix, either with tweaks to the article or the hook. CMD (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis:
1. Added references for those few paragraphs I forgot to cite.
2. To make it easier to find the support for the hook, I have rephrased the intro a bit, duplicated a footnote there from the body (optional per MOS:LEADCITE), and added non-paywalled sources for it. Additionally:
  - I have changed a "frozen" into "freeze" for sake of CTRL+F. (There were already 8 instances of "freezing".)
  - Likewise I have added "Lord Chancellor" to the lead, though "the Chancellor" and "the pre-Revolutionary Chancellor" appear in the article and refer to that. I used "Lord Chancellor" in the hook rather than "Court of Chancery" (the former court of the Lord Chancellor) mainly since it sounds more interesting (and is accurate), but I would be fine with instead using "Court of Chancery" in the hook.
  - Re: "although I cannot access the source", if you log in to the Wikipedia: Library, then you should be able to access that paywalled sources via HeinOnline at Maloy, "Expansive Equity Jurisprudence: A Court Divided" (and likewise the other paywalled source at Haines, "The Conservative Assault on Federal Equity").
3. While I have now very slightly changed the wording, "converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction" (Google) is not original to the case, and the exact phrase is used by the Supreme Court, the court of appeals, and multiple sources (Burbank, Grenig)—in each instance without quotation.

Thank you very much for looking over this. SilverLocust 💬 22:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies and explanations, and the TWL note. I believe this is good to go. CMD (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]