6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 250 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 Weinstein v. Bradford.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Weinstein v. Bradford Anchor | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review” | 78 |
| 2 | Weinstein v. Bradford | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” | 56 |
| 3 | Spencer v. Kemna | green | “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” | 45 |
| 4 | Spencer v. Kemna | green | “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” | 39 |
| 5 | City of Los Angeles v. Lyons | green | “the capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.” | 27 |
| 6 | Larsen v. State | green | “if a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner's habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” | 5 |
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.