I think these criteria should be sufficient to
determine if one party's name is an acceptable answer for a
court case:
1. The party given must not be a
common party (e.g., State/Commonwealth, United States,
People, Rex/Regina, names of attorneys general or
government agencies, etc.)
2. The case must be widely
known by the name of the party given (e.g., Gideon,
Dred Scot)
3. The party given must not have a
common name (e.g., Brown)
4. The party given must not
be an unusually frequent litigant (e.g.,
ACLU)
If the player gives an answer that doesn't fit those
criteria, but is not incorrect, he should be prompted for
more information. For instance, if a player answers
"Brown" for _Brown v Board of Education ot Topeka_, he
should be prompted. In this case, simply adding "Board"
after the prompt should be enough for a correct
answer.
Just my $.0315 Canadian.
-Steve Ohm