Supreme Court· 12/14/1971

North Carolina v. Rice

Citations

404 U.S. 244
92 S. Ct. 402
30 L. Ed. 2d 413
1971 U.S. LEXIS 5

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 mootness doctrine derives from Article III of the Constitution (quoting Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964))
holding that federal courts must resolve questions of mootness before assuming jurisdiction
holding that federal courts must resolve questions of mootness before assuming jurisdiction
holding moot a challenge to the legality of a sentence already served, refusing to invoke collateral consequences doctrine, which applies only to attacks upon a conviction itself
holding moot a challenge to the legality of a sentence already served, refusing to invoke collateral consequences doctrine, which applies only to attacks upon a conviction itself
noting that a case becomes moot when a court’s decision can no longer affect the rights of litigants in the case before it and would be nothing but an advisory opinion on hypothetical facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Douglas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

829 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named North Carolina v. Rice

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.