Junkins v. Branstad

How courts have described this case

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

• finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not ap ply
• finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not apply
• noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”
• noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”
• defining as moot cases that no longer present a justiciable controversy because issues have become academic or nonexistent and judgment would have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy
• “The district court made no ruling on the merits of the . . . petition or application . . . . We consequently have nothing to review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).