North Carolina v. Rice

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).