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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 21 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 New Mexicans For Bill Richardson v. Gonzales.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Mexicans For Bill Richardson v. Gonzales Anchor | green | “whether the challenged action creates a direct and immediate dilemma for the parties.” | 7 |
| 2 | Sierra Club v. Yeutter | green | “requiring us to evaluate both the fitness of the issue for judicial resolution and the hardship to the parties of withholding judicial consideration.” | 5 |
| 3 | El Dia, Inc. v. Rafael Hernandez Colon | green | “typically turns upon whether the challenged action creates a "direct and immediate” | 5 |
| 4 | National Student Association, Inc. v. Lewis B. Hershey | green | “the mere existence of a statute ... is ordinarily not enough to sustain a judicial challenge, even by one who reasonably believes that the law applies to him and will be enforced against him according to its terms,” | 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.