State v. Hattrup

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 case was not moot because, although the project had been completed, “changes c[ould] still be made to help alleviate any adverse effects”
• allowing challenge to the development of a housing project that was already built because the project could still be modified to grant the plaintiff relief
• “In determining whether a plaintiff can prove facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him or her to relief, we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the 23 complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).