Talk:List of uniform acts (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


The Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (U.S.) has the (U.S.) disambiguation because of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (Australia). The names of the laws are not identical, but are close enough to warrant the disambig. --Benc 06:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added (1992) and (1996) to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) because there were three iterations of UIFSA. A few minutes ago, I'd changed the list of uniform acts to have separate entries for UIFSA ’96 and UIFSA ’01 because sometime over the next few weeks months I was going to add an article about UIFSA '96 as it's the version enacted in most USA states pursuant to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Later, I was going to add a little more about UIFSA '01, which contained some fixes to the '96 version. I wasn't going to do anything about UIFSA '92. On reflection, I decided the UIFSA article should deal with all three. I’ll probably build the article in stages. --Tregonsee 11:15, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since I'm a lawyer, and the primary page has so many links to non-existant articles, I may be able to contribute some wikiservice, as a long-term (we're talkin' years in the making) project.--Tregonsee 16:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uniform Building Code?[edit]

Does the Uniform Building Code belong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:09, October 17, 2006

Do we really want a list here?[edit]

This list is pretty long (longer than the article, I think) and most of the acts don't have articles yet, some may never. There's a link to the list on the organization's web site that is comprehensive. I'm not really sure this belongs here. Is there another place it could be?--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I re-read the article name and noticed that this is the LIST of Uniform Acts. I got here thinking it was an article on the Uniform Acts. So, let me adjust my comment, I think we need separate articles, one an article on Uniform and Model Acts and one just the bare list. --Doug.(talk contribs) 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree... I'm fine with a list being in here as one section; especially if we double-column it. I'm not very fond of articles that are nothing but lists.
However, I think the article title is wrong. This should just be "Uniform Acts (United States)"; or maybe just "Uniform Acts" unless there are any similar uniform acts outside the US.
So my first choice would be to have a single article, without "List of" in the title; and the list of Acts the last section within it. My second choice would be to split into two articles, on on uniform acts in general, and the other a list of them. -- Terry Carroll 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether they ever get them, the vast majority of these acts deserve articles. They represent an effort to distill and perfect the law, and have generally been adopted in most U.S. jurisdictions. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
These suggestions still don't address the model acts which are a separate animal. Also many of these have been adopted in some form in many U.S. jurisdictions. Many of them have not, and many are only adopted in a few states. To say that they "have generally been adopted in most U.S. jurisdictions" is not correct, or at least that statement needs verification before we base decisions on it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I look down the list, I see a lot that have either been adopted or have been extensively copied in Florida, and a lot that I have seen referenced in dealings with other states. I'll have to do case by case research to be sure. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
BD2412: I agree, I expect that most of these do deserve their own articles. I can't help out much there, because I'm strictly an IP lawyer and the only uniform IP law is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act; whose article is pretty anemic an I intend to flesh out.
Doug: Yes, model acts are another beast. I've always thought that the distinction between one of the uniform acts and the model acts were that the uniform acts were intended to actually be enacted as-is, whereas a model act was intended to provide a model for a legislature or other enacting body to start from (e.g., the Model Penal Code). But I'm no longer sure that distinction is correct; certainly there are lots of model codes, like building codes, that are drafted by standards organizations and certainly are intended to be enacted as-is by city lawmaking authorities (e.g., a city council).
For what it's worth, Black's (at least the Fifth Edition I have here) doesn't make much of a distinction between uniform acts and model acts; and in fact, I think its definition of model act is wrong, so I'm hesitant to rely on those definitions:
Model act. Statute proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners of [sic, should be "on"] Uniform State Laws for adoption by State legislatures, e.g. Model Business Corporation Act; Model Penal Code; Model Probate Code. Frequently, the state adopting the model act will modify it to some extent to meet its own needs or may adopt only a portion of such.
Uniform Laws or Acts. Laws in various subject areas, approved by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, that are often adopted, in whole or substantially, by individual states. Examples are the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code. See also Model Act.
Uniform State laws. See Model Act; Uniform Laws or Acts.
The Model Penal Code, at least, comes from the American Law Institute, not from the NCCUSL.
My thinking for now is to deal with just the Uniform Acts, and maybe deal with model codes later, if at all.
Also, just to toss another item on the list: there's also Restatements of the Law; not a model or uniform code, but still intended to be (and essentially operating as) a source of law. In the Restatements article, only Restatement of Contracts, Second rates its own article. based on what I remember from law school, I would expect there to be a Restatement of Torts, Second and Restatement of Agency, Third, at least. -- Terry Carroll 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, one other point in favor of renaming this article away from a simple list -- I have randomly looked at some of the other articles that link to this page. It looks like most of are linking on "model act," "uniform act," etc., i.e. as though it is an article about such acts, not a list of acts. -- Terry Carroll 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that's how I initially got here - starting this whole thread, see the first two comments at the top. That's why this section has the name it does, I though I was on an article about the acts. Anyway, Model Acts come out of all sorts of places (including NCCUSL - sometimes because not enough states like the idea), see this link for more explanation[1]. That same link gives information on which Uniform Laws have been enacted by which states as does the NCCUSL's web site. In some cases the answer is only one state or even none. The page also lists the UCC and implies it is out of the NCCUSL, but it is actually a joint effort between NCCUSL and ALI. And what do the dates mean? I don't see the connection between the UCC and the year 2001, I believe there are 2006 versions, though various states have various versions and sometimes different versions for different articles. I wasn't really meaning to bring up uniform building codes, I notice someone else did in an unsigned comment right above mine though. I haven't even looked to see if there are relevant pages, some of them rate them though I think, but that's another matter. I don't really care for pages of lists though.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So here's a proposal, just put here as a stake in the ground, maybe it can be imrpoved. I suggest:

  1. retitling it "Uniform laws and model acts"
  2. edit the intro to be less NCCUSL oriented
  3. a section on the distinction between Uniform laws and model acts, with citation to the NCCUSL standard
  4. the section on drafting
  5. List of uniform acts and model acts
  6. References, External links, See Also etc.

I can be talked out of the list, and instead have a short narrative with examples of such laws, with a line:

which can be just the list part of this article; or else this article itself, and all my edits suggested above be put in a new article that points to this.

What do you think? -- Terry Carroll 05:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • How about List of notable uniform and model acts with links to NCCUSL, ALI, ABA, etc. so any user can find the complete list. --Doug.(talk contribs) 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just found out about this debate. I agree that this list should be trimmed to a list of notable uniform and model acts. Even though most of the uniform and model acts probably do deserve articles of their own, the sad truth is that most of them will never get an article because most lawyers (like me) are too busy conserving their writing energy for their clients' projects. And when we have time to write for Wikipedia, we prefer to work on more popular articles like Lawyer. Therefore, it makes no sense to have links to articles that will never exist (or will never grow beyond stubs in the near-term future of about five to ten years) because no one has the time, energy, or interest to write them. --Coolcaesar 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To make it clearer that I'm getting at, I mean that I think this list should obviously have the big "hits" like the Uniform Commercial Code and the Model Penal Code. But acts like the Real Estate Time-Share Act and the Dormant Mineral Interests Act are so obscure that even NCCUSL doesn't bother to maintain fact sheets for them (see the list of all NCCUSL acts and materials available for each here). --Coolcaesar 04:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Probate Code Vi (1989) (1998)[edit]

Is "*Uniform Probate Code Vi (1989) (1998)" supposed to be new Article VI? It is not clear and does not look like a probable future Wikipedia article title, so should not be linked that way. -Rrius (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Uniform Acts (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)