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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 8 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 Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Anchor | green | “also significant are whether work was undertaken without authority or in bad faith, and whether substantially completed work is 'readily undone, without undue hardship.' further, a court may elect to retain jurisdiction despite mootness if recurring novel or substantial issues a…” | 5 |
| 2 | Cornelius v. City of Oneonta | green | “would not directly affect petitioners' future similar applications and cannot undo any harm already sustained by the denial” | 3 |
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.