Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Lasso)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the imposition of an “obstacle to [plaintiffs] candidacy for higher judicial office” satisfied the injury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing
• holding that the imposition of an \obstacle to [plaintiff's] candidacy for higher judicial office\ satisfied the injury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing
• holding that the Texas Constitution’s “resign-to-run requirement” did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
• holding that the Texas Constitution's \resign-to-run requirement\ did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
• holding that plaintiff officeholders had standing because they credibly alleged that they would have announced their candidacy for other offices but for the \automatic resignation\ provision they were challenging
• concluding that “[djecision in this area of constitutional adjudication is a matter of degree”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).