Shenandoah Valley Network v. J. Capka

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement limit[s] the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process”
• explaining that “Article III’s case- or-controversy requirement limit[s] the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process”
• “[A] dispute is lacking here — and because we cannot issue an advisory opinion — we have no authority to adjudicate this suit.”
• “[F]ederal courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).