In re 2016 Primary Election Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections

34 Citing cases

  1. Howard v. Tennessee

    Case No. 3:16-cv-2829 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 27, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    The Sixth Circuit has observed that "[c]hallenges to election laws quintessential[ly] evade review because the remedy sought is rendered impossible by the occurrence of the relevant election." In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Platt v. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 769 F.3d 447, 452-53 (6th Cir. 2014)). As a result, the Sixth Circuit applies a "somewhat relaxed" inquiry with regard to whether an election-related case meets the requirements of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception.

  2. Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp.

    991 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2021)   Cited 100 times
    Recognizing the issue as "an open question"

    Indeed, Fund Liquidation's interpretation of Rule 9 would be particularly hard to swallow in cases, unlike this one, where the original plaintiff never existed whatsoever. Because one elemental precondition for meeting the case-or-controversy requirement is a claimant with standing, Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, it must be that the non-existence of the supposed claimant is a problem of constitutional magnitude, see In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that "[t]here is no plaintiff with standing if there is no plaintiff"); see also LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 957 F.3d 943, 953 (9th Cir. 2020) (same); House v. Mitra QSR KNE LLC , 796 F. App'x 783, 787 (4th Cir. 2019) (same). Fund Liquidation's primary response to this argument is to identify various prior cases in which dissolved corporate entities were not thrown out of court for lack of standing.

  3. Miller v. Collins

    No. 23-3191 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023)   Cited 17 times

    However, federal courts must decide jurisdictional questions before considering issues related to the merits of a case. See In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). Although Defendants' jurisdictional challenge was not raised on appeal, "we always have 'jurisdiction on appeal . . . for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit' in the first place[,]" specifically when there exists a pertinent question on whether a litigant has standing to bring the lawsuit. Id. at 587 (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998)).

  4. The Branch of Citibank v. De Nevares

    74 F.4th 8 (2d Cir. 2023)   Cited 11 times

    Without adverse parties, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction under Article III. See, e.g., In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016) ("There is no plaintiff with standing if there is no plaintiff."); see also 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3530 (3d ed. 2023) ("The most elemental requirement of adversary litigation is that there be two or more parties."). CONCLUSION

  5. R. K. v. Lee

    53 F.4th 995 (6th Cir. 2022)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that to constitute concrete injury, falling ill from COVID-19 due to a lack of universal masking is too speculative

    Federal courts have discretion to address jurisdictional issues in any order and can choose to address the " ‘eas[y]’ rather than the more ‘difficult’ jurisdictional issue." In re: 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). In this case, the mootness issue is the easier one to resolve.

  6. Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. United States Food & Drug Admin.

    13 F.4th 531 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that a complaint that requires a court to speculate as to the injury suffered by the plaintiff should be dismissed for want of standing

    We thus exercise our discretion to begin with standing, which, as it turns out, moots any mootness issue. See In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). II

  7. Thompson v. DeWine

    7 F.4th 521 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 21 times
    In Thompson, a group of Michigan residents challenged dozens of executive orders that closed in-state businesses and directed residents to stay home.

    The capable-of-repetition exception features regularly in election disputes. See In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016). To be capable of repetition but evading review, a dispute must satisfy a two-pronged test.

  8. Thompson v. Dewine

    No. 21-3514 (6th Cir. Jul. 28, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In Thompson, the plaintiffs argued that "COVID-19 remains a ‘full blown crisis’ hampering their efforts to gather signatures for 2021 initiatives," and thus their challenge fell under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine.

    The capable-of-repetition exception features regularly in election disputes. See In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016). To be capable of repetition but evading review, a dispute must satisfy a two-pronged test.

  9. Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Hargett

    2 F.4th 548 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness did not apply to COVID-19-related challenge to election provision because, due to "advancements in COVID-19 vaccinations and treatment since this case began, the COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to pose a serious threat during the next election cycle"

    See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 66–67, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) ("We may resolve the question whether there remains a live case or controversy ... without first determining whether [plaintiffs have] standing to appeal because the former question, like the latter, goes to the Article III jurisdiction of this Court and the courts below, not the merits of the case."); In re: 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that this court has "discretion to address jurisdictional issues ‘in any sequence we wish’ " (quoting Warshak v. United States , 532 F.3d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc))). B.

  10. United States v. Parker

    Case No. 19-2362 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2021)

    All of this makes it tempting to look the other way when one-of-a-kind filings unwittingly and unintentionally sidestep the strictures of Article III. But just as federal courts may not permit "plaintiff-less complaints" filed under novel circumstances, In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016), they may not decide controversy-less disputes under prosaic circumstances. A dispute must be real, substantial, and "admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character."