Talk:Abrogation doctrine: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Brian Dean Abramson (response) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
It might be smart to add a separate category for European, UK, Asian andUS law. | It might be smart to add a separate category for European, UK, Asian andUS law. | ||
Maybe '''<nowiki>[[Category:Law US]]</nowiki>''' in this case? | Maybe '''<nowiki>[[Category:Law US]]</nowiki>''' in this case? [[User:Frank van Geelkerken|Frank van Geelkerken]] 11:17, 13 May 2007 (CDT) (added name) | ||
*So far as I have been able to determine, this doctrine is unique to U.S. law, with its clearly delineated state/federal system. I don't know what the criteria is for splitting off categories. Cheers! [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 20:42, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | *So far as I have been able to determine, this doctrine is unique to U.S. law, with its clearly delineated state/federal system. I don't know what the criteria is for splitting off categories. Cheers! [[User:Brian Dean Abramson|Brian Dean Abramson]] 20:42, 2 May 2007 (CDT) |
Latest revision as of 02:11, 24 September 2007
It might be smart to add a separate category for European, UK, Asian andUS law. Maybe [[Category:Law US]] in this case? Frank van Geelkerken 11:17, 13 May 2007 (CDT) (added name)
- So far as I have been able to determine, this doctrine is unique to U.S. law, with its clearly delineated state/federal system. I don't know what the criteria is for splitting off categories. Cheers! Brian Dean Abramson 20:42, 2 May 2007 (CDT)