Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III” where both parties agreed the law was constitutional and required setting aside a district court order
• considering “the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional,” and holding “[t]here is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution”
• both parties to the lawsuit jointly sought a judicial determination that an anti-busing statute was unconstitutional
• If “both litigants desire precisely the same result,” then “no case or controversy” persists.
• case dismissed based on lack of case or controversy where both sides argued that an anti-busing law was constitutional, thus “con- front[ing]” the Court “with the anomaly that both litigants desire precise- ly the same result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).