The nice thing about court cases is that they're divided nicely into parts that consider different questions before the court. You also get an entire section called "Background" which I hear is useful.
But even before you get to the background, just by reading the first page, you get a more nuanced view of what's going on. The decision's split up into seven parts, of which only part I and VI saw unanimous agreement. Judge Gregory dissented for parts II-V, and Judge Diaz wrote his own opinion for part VII, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Also, you can see that in some questions, the lower court's affirmed, in others it was rejected, and some questions were sent back to it.
What other nuance can we pull out of this from reading just a few more sentences?
The nice thing about court cases is that they're divided nicely into parts that consider different questions before the court. You also get an entire section called "Background" which I hear is useful.
But even before you get to the background, just by reading the first page, you get a more nuanced view of what's going on. The decision's split up into seven parts, of which only part I and VI saw unanimous agreement. Judge Gregory dissented for parts II-V, and Judge Diaz wrote his own opinion for part VII, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Also, you can see that in some questions, the lower court's affirmed, in others it was rejected, and some questions were sent back to it.
What other nuance can we pull out of this from reading just a few more sentences?