Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Armstrong v. Davis.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Armstrong v. Davis Anchor | green | “must demonstrate 'that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of the violation.” | 6 |
| 2 | Manuela Villa v. Maricopa County | green | “or 'a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way.” | 6 |
| 3 | Charles Laduke v. Alan C. Nelson, Etc. | green | “second, the plaintiff may demonstrate that the harm is part of a 'pattern of officially sanctioned . . . behavior, violative of the plaintiffs' federal rights.” | 4 |
| 4 | Index Newspapers LLC v. United States Marshals Service | green | “a chilling of first amendment rights can constitute a cognizable injury, so long as the chilling effect is not 'based on a fear of future injury that itself is too speculative to confer standing.” | 4 |
| 5 | Index Newspapers LLC v. United States Marshals Service | green | “a plaintiff may not rely 'on mere conjecture about possible governmental actions' to demonstrate injury, and must instead present 'concrete evidence to substantiate their fears.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.