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 3 cases, quoted by 571 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 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission Anchor | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” | 264 |
| 2 | Weinstein v. Bradford | green | “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” | 94 |
| 3 | Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” | 78 |
| 4 | Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review” | 77 |
| 5 | North Carolina v. Rice | green | “federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” | 58 |
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.