United States v. Elfred William Petruk

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a plaintiff can “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for prospective relief” either by demonstrating “a sufficiently imminent injury in fact” or by demonstrating “an ongoing injury”
• concluding that the plaintiffs’ allegation that behavior perceived to violate the statutes was “inevitable” on school grounds was sufficient to allege an intent to engage in a specific course of conduct proscribed by the statutes
• finding credible threat of enforcement of state statute in part because plaintiffs had been prosecuted by the laws in the past
• noting ongoing or future injury in fact is required for a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief
• “Threat of prosecution is especially credible when defendants have not ‘disavowed enforcement’ if plaintiffs engage in similar conduct in the future”
• “At least one plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim and form of requested relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).