No, the one you mentioned had no title given to it because it was MULTIPLE CASES. The text of the actual Brown v Bd of Education was not altered to get rid of the titles of the cases; the text clearly referred to those cases as the earliest cases - NOT by specific reference to any one of them.
IOW, what you showed did NOT have the text of the SCOTUS decision altered to get rid of a specific case title. And there was no place in that decision where a case was referred to only by its number and not by its title. So what you posted actually showed the exact opposite of what you claimed it showed. It showed that the alteration of the actual text of a decision is NOT a “problem” that the site suddenly corrected today, after Donofrio brought attention to it.
And philman 63 has shown the timeframe in which the text was altered to get rid of the “Minor v Happersett” reference. It was originally entered correctly and it took a concrete, specific action by somebody to alter that text.
Same with the Cohens reference in Miranda. In fact, it was missing during the exact same timeframe as the missing reference to Minor. In 2007 and before, it was there, and then from 2008 until now it was not.
Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this: if someone deliberately changed that page to remove the reference to Minor, why did they leave the link for “88 U. S. 167”—which leads directly to the text of Minor? Doesn’t that suggest that maybe this wasn’t an attempt to hide something?