Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A claim for declaratory relief is moot if the primary interest in the controversy is merely obtaining emotional satisfaction rather than an adjudication of present rights.

After a district court denied damages and declaratory relief regarding the death of a plaintiff's son, the plaintiff amended his complaint to seek only declaratory judgment. The question is whether the remaining claim satisfies the case or controversy requirement. Because the underlying liability issue was decided and the plaintiff's interest was based on seeking emotional satisfaction rather than an adjudication of present rights upon established facts, the suit lacks a live controversy. Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is insufficient to meet the case-or-controversy requirement.

767 citation events (252 in the last 25 years) across 82 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bryant v. McLean, No. 1:23-cv-00997 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 172 Determining mootness for declaratory relief claims57 citing cases“for a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.”10 citing courts quote it · also cited as 97 S. Ct. at 1740 · 56 listed here
  • Bryant v. McLean, No. 1:23-cv-00997 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2024).
    (This ‘legal interest’ must be more than 22 simply the satisfaction of a declaration that a person was wronged.)
  • Ramos Ramos v. Jordan-Conde, No. 23-1940 (1st Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).published
    Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 (1977) (per curiam)).
  • James Hughes v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., No. 5:24-cv-02079 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2025).
    Thus, “in the context of an action for declaratory relief, a plaintiff must be seeking more than a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly harmed by the defendant.” Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v.…
  • Sheliga v. Windber Borough, No. 3:23-cv-00139 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2024). 2 cites
    Waller v. Hanlon, in turn, at 922 F.3d 603–04, cited Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam).
  • Scott v. Myers, No. 3:21-cv-00194 (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2024). 2 cites
    Waller v. Hanlon, in turn, at 922 F.3d 603-04, cited Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977) (per curiam).
  • Military Road Revitalization Co., LLC v. St. Tammany Par. Gov't, No. 2:24-cv-00055 (E.D. La. May 31, 2024).
    “For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which ‘calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts”
  • InfoCision Mgmt. Corp. v. Griswold, No. 1:20-cv-00357 (D. Colo. May 14, 2024).
    However, “in the context of an action for declaratory relief, a plaintiff must be seeking more than a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly harmed by the defendant.” Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1025 (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 17…
  • Soc'y Ins. v. Blue Hill Hosp. Inc, No. 2:23-cv-00194 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2024).
    Wis. June 23, 2015) (citing Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977)).
  • Calpine Corp. v. PA DEP & PA EQB, No. 357 M.D. 2022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 7, 2023).unpublished
    Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172-73 [(1977)] (per curiam) (holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no “present right” is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling).
  • Jody Lutter v. Jneso, 86 F.4th 111 (3d Cir. 2023).published
    Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172 (1977); see also Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986) (“The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet [Article] III’s requirements.”).
Show 46 more citing cases
At page 173 Emotional involvement insufficient for case-or-controversy8 citing cases“emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.”5 citing courts quote it
  • Kelsey v. Clark, No. 22-22, 2023 WL 1980307 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2023).unpublished
    “speculation" regarding future contingencies that "might" occur "is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.”
  • Geary v. Nat'l Newspaper Publishers Assoc., 279 A.3d 371 (D.C. 2022).published
    “While the emotional satisfaction of a victory may be important to a litigant, ‘emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.’” Sett…
  • Fletcher v. Madison, City of, No. 5:21-cv-01431 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2021). 3 cites
    In Mattis, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to obtain a judgment declaring unconstitutional Missouri statutes that authorized police officers to use deadly force to apprehend individuals committing felo…
  • Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 630 F. Supp. 344 (M.D. Ga. 1986).published
    As the Supreme Court of the United States said in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 173 , 97 S.Ct. 1739, 1740 , 52 L.E.2d 219, 222 (1977), “Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were…
  • City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983).published 6 cites
    Plaintiff alleged that he had another *105 son, who " ` if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by thes…
  • In Re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).published
  • Park Cnty. Resource Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 817 F.2d 609 (10th Cir. 1987).published
  • Settlemire v. Dist. of Columbia Off. of Emp. Appeals, 898 A.2d 902 (D.C. 2006).published
At page 171 Per Curiam. Appellee’s 18-year-old son was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest. Appellee filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against…2 citing casesopening of page *171 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Fletcher v. Madison, City of, No. 5:21-cv-01431 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2021). 3 cites
    In Mattis, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to obtain a judgment declaring unconstitutional Missouri statutes that authorized police officers to use deadly force to apprehend individuals committing felo…
  • Greg Cannon v. State of Arkansas, No. 96-3960 (8th Cir. Apr. 15, 1998).unpublished
    See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-06 (concluding, although police officers applied “chokehold” to Lyons, he lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment or injunction barring police use of chokeholds; Lyons may have damages claim, but such does n…
52 L. Ed. 2d at 222 for declaratory judgment there must be dispute which calls for adjudication of present right upon established fact, not advisory opinion1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Bunge Corp. v. Agri-Trans Corp., 542 F. Supp. 961 (N.D. Miss. 1982).published
    (for declaratory judgment there must be dispute which calls for adjudication of present right upon established fact, not advisory opinion)
At page 222 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 630 F. Supp. 344 (M.D. Ga. 1986).published
    As the Supreme Court of the United States said in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 173 , 97 S.Ct. 1739, 1740 , 52 L.E.2d 219, 222 (1977), “Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were…
Other citing cases6 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri
v.
Mattis
76-1179.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1977.
Published opinion
431 U.S. 171
1977 U.S. LEXIS 87
✓ 53 L. Ed. 2d 1102
Per Curiam.
Cited by 255 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: #45,154 of 633,719
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1) · D. Minnesota (1)
Per Curiam.

Appellee’s 18-year-old son was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest. Appellee filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the police officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He sought to recover damages, and also to obtain a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes authorizing the police action were unconstitutional. [1] The District Court held that a defense of good faith had been established, and denied both forms of relief. No appeal was taken from the denial of damages, but appellee did seek review of the denial of declaratory relief. The Eighth Circuit held that declaratory relief was available and remanded for consideration of[*172] the merits of the constitutional issue. Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588 (1974).

On remand, appellee filed an amended complaint, in which he made no claim for damages. The Missouri Attorney General was allowed to intervene in defense of the statutes, and the case was then submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court upheld the statutes, Mattis v. Schnarr, 404 F. Supp. 643 (1975), but was reversed by a divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, 547 F. 2d 1007 (1976). The Attorney General brought an appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2) from the holding that the state statutes were unconstitutional.

Although we are urged to consider the merits of the Court of Appeals’ holding, we are unable to do so, because this suit does not now present a live “case or controversy.” This suit was brought to determine the police officers’ liability for the death of appellee’s son. That issue has been decided, and there is no longer any possible basis for a damages claim. Nor is there any possible basis for a declaratory judgment. For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which “calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 242 (1937). See also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941). Here, the District Court was asked to answer the hypothetical question whether the defendants would have been liable apart from their defense of good faith. No “present right” of appellee was at stake. Indeed, appellee’s primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son’s death was wrongful. [2] Appellee’s[*173] Motion to Affirm 5-6, n. 1. Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the second amended complaint.

It is so ordered.

1

These statutes permit police to use deadly force in apprehending a person who has committed a felony, following notice of the intent to arrest. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 559.040 and 544.190 (1969); see Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F. 2d 588, 591, and n. 4 (CA8 1974).

2

The second amended complaint also alleges that appellee has another son who “if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers . . . .” 3 App. in Mattis v. Schnarr, No. 75-1849 (CA8), p. 5[*173] (emphasis added). Such speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.