I planned to find an short article both simple and elegant describing the Witnesses litigation success and its legacy. EBSCO Host and Lexis Legal were my planned destinations. Because it is such an interest of mind, I was willing to read for hours to find the proper article. I did not want something too pedantic or too legal.
An earlier post made me cancel my plans. No one is seriously interested in the research question. Once posted, it would be attacked. Although I just copied it and perhaps broke copyright law, I would be attacked. There is a difference between hostility and interesting discussion of different viewpoints. Repeatedly, I've explained how the legal system works. I refuse to spend hours to be mocked and have my profession mocked, also.
The key is called shepardization (after a publishing company called shepherd's). Normally, you need a legal database or large law library to shepardize. Since we are doing it for nonlegal reasons, googling will suffice. It won't be perfect but we will be in the ball park. Wikipedia, FindLaw, the ACLU, Citizens United, Freedom from Religion will have JW case tables. Type the case name in Google or FindLaw for Federal court cases. Hundreds of cases will show up. Skim the short descriptions at the start of the cases. Note the litigants. Google Scholar will have a treasure trove of professional journal discussions.
Anyone with access to a law library or commercial legal research program, I will give more detailed instructions.
I am not "your girl." Of course, I remain willing to be a member of a community but I will not be ordered and hectored to do research. The person demanding is not interested in the answer. Whatever is found will be mocked. I've described how to perform the research in a simple manner. This process removes much editorial comment so the results will not be slanted. I remain willing to help refine the process for anyone truly interested.