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 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Holton v. Department of Employment & Training.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Holton v. Department of Employment & Training Anchor | green | “the mootness doctrine derives its force from the vermont constitution, which, like its federal counterpart, limits the authority of the courts to the determination of actual, live controversies between adverse litigants.” | 3 |
| 2 | Houston v. Town of Waitsfield | green | “a change in facts or circumstances can render a case moot if this court can no longer grant effective relief.” | 2 |
| 3 | Houston v. Town of Waitsfield | green | “no longer grant effective relief” | 2 |
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.