Talk:Abrogation doctrine: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Brian Dean Abramson (response) |
imported>Brian Dean Abramson (unsigned comment) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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? {{unsigned|Frank van Geelkerken}} | ||
*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) | ||
Revision as of 19:43, 2 May 2007
It might be smart to add a separate category for European, UK, Asian andUS law. Maybe [[Category:Law US]] in this case? ...said Frank van Geelkerken (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)
- 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)