Hughes v. New York Elevated Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• “[B]ecause Banks’s theory of standing requires us to accept a ‘speculative chain of possibilities,’ his claimed future injury is — at least under the Court’s current standing framework — insufficiently ‘concrete’ and ‘imminent’ to invoke the judicial power.”
• “[A]pplying [the medical necessity] standard often entails case-by-case adjudication.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).