Goosby v. Osser

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, when considering a motion to convene a three-judge court, “a substantial question of constitutionality must be determined by the allegations of the bill of complaint” and that “the allegations of the[] complaint must be deemed to be true” (quotations omitted)
• no substantial constitutional issue when analogous claims have been rejected by Supreme Court and this circuit
• “Insofar as the single judge may have rested his finding of the absence of a case or controversy on the alleged difficulty of formulating a remedy, he also erred.”
• “Constitutional insubstantiality’ for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as ‘essentially fictitious,’ Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. [31], at 33 [82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1962
• \[C]laims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial....\
• “A claim is insubstantial only if its soundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of [the Supreme Court] as to foreclose the subject .(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).