Ammex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Michael A. Cox, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the ripeness inquiry arises most clearly when litigants seek to enjoin the enforcement of statutes, regulations, or policies that have not yet been enforced against them.”
• pointing out that the ripeness doctrine “arises most clearly” when a party is seeking to enjoin a policy that has “not yet been enforced against them” (emphasis added)
• “[W]hatever hardship Ammex incurs by waiting for enforcement is not enough to outweigh the above-considered factors weighing against ripeness here.”
• “Recent holdings of the Supreme Court make clear the continuing validity in that context of the three-part test for ripeness[.]” (citations omitted)
• “the existence of federal jurisdiction may be questioned at any point in the course of litigation and … parties cannot waive the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction.”
• “[T]he existence of federal jurisdiction may be questioned at any point in the course of litigation and . . . parties cannot waive the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).