The "Breyer is the Ultimate Word on the Ten Commandments Cases" just doesn't have the same ring.
Mr. Poon | Email | Homepage | 08.15.05 - 5:43 pm | #

The Wine Cases? (There were more than one consolidated -- I think one from New York and one from Michigan).

And, for the record, I think it would be fine to call Booker and Fanfan the Sentencing Cases.
Scott | Email | Homepage | 08.15.05 - 11:25 pm | #

Leave it to you to suggest "The Wine Cases." Actually, that's probably got a better shot of happening than any I suggested.

I wonder, Do state courts ever use this naming convention?
Milbarge | Email | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 1:57 am | #

Not mine, as far as I know.
Scott | Email | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 9:08 am | #

I don't think your first criteria that the official name might be harder to remember later on is necessary. If the second criteria (multitude of parties) is valid, which I agree with, then the cases will generally be remembered by only a single party or common theme. Furthermore, if it is a landmark case, then it will be remembered no matter what the name (Miranda was not a household name until after the case and then became so because of the case's importance).
Wadsworth | Email | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 9:10 am | #

In 1970 the Supreme Court decided "The New Haven Inclusion Cases," arising out of the Penn Central merger. Maybe they thought the prospect of referring to it as "New York, N.H. & H. R.R. First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Cmte. v. United States" was just too daunting.
Seamus | Email | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 11:27 am | #

I'm pretty ignorant/uninformed in this area of the law, but depending on how things go, maybe "The Medical Marijuana Cases" or something along those lines.
Frolics and Detours | Email | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 8:45 am | #