Geneva Hebert v. the Fresh Market, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that in “this facial rule challenge, we are not permitted to use hypothetical individual facts as a basis on which to invalidate a rule”
• exercising discretion to consider moot rule chal- lenge under ORS 14.175 where issues had “broader relevance than just this case”
• exercising discretion to consider moot rule chal- lenge under ORS 14.175 where issues had “broader relevance than just this case”
• rejecting an argument that a facial challenge to an administrative rule is not likely to evade review because the same arguments could be raised by an individual in an as-applied challenge
• challenge likely to evade review due to length of judicial process and fact that “rule is permanently amended every six months, and regularly amended on a temporary basis even more often”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).