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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 17 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 Alvarez v. Smith.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alvarez v. Smith Anchor | green | “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” | 8 |
| 2 | Miller v. Glanz | green | “mootness . . . is a fundamental bar to judicial review that must be accounted for at all stages of a proceeding, and applies in habeas as in any other type of litigation.” | 5 |
| 3 | Essuman v. Gonzales | green | “the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider ferry's petition insofar as it challenged the dhs's administrative order of removal.” | 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.