Battle of Perryville

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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. United States: Kentucky High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as High-importance). Law 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.

I can't seem to navigate findlaw well enough to get the decision on this, someone may want to add a link in the article for those wanting to read it (or to summerize it for others). Darker Dreams 30 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you can find the case by going to this link: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html, then selecting the link "Recent Decisions". Mateo SA | talk June 30, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

This article has some really bad citation here, in no way should anyone be citing a blog on a Wikipedia article. There are plenty of good sources to chose from, and they are not being represented. A vast majority of this article does not even have any citations. Also I've found some of the information to be inaccurate, so I changed the ruling to represent an actual citation, and made as many minor changes as I could. Hopefully someone can expand this article more.Kayz911 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Subsequent history section, there was a new filing in 2010, highly relevant to this case. What happened with that filing? How far has it advanced - or is there even a court decision? (I know that these cases take a long time; but something should have happened in over four years' time.) JoergenB (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At last - after trying various googling with partial source terms - I succeeded to find what probably should be considered as the end of the story: The SC declined review already in February 2011. I added this, and the best source I found (which possibly might be suspected of partiality, although the article was not very apparently biased); but if anyone finds a better source, just change the references! JoergenB (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]