Princeton University v. Schmid

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 courts do not “decide hypothetical issues or [] give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse parties”
• holding that because Princeton had repealed regulations that the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided violated the state constitution, Princeton could not appeal this decision on federal grounds; the dispute was moot
• holding that the court does “not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse parties”
• holding that where a new regulation has superceded an old one, the “validity of the old regulation is moot, for this case has lost its character as a present, live controversy” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that because Princeton had repealed regulations that the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided violated the state constitution, Princeton could not appeal this decision on federal grounds; the dispute was moot
• holding that where a new regulation has superceded an old one, the “validity of the old regulation is moot, for this case has lost its character as a present, live controversy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).