# Preiser v. Newkirk

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 395

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426161

## Case

- **Full name:** PREISER, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, Et Al. v. NEWKIRK
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1975
- **Citations:** 422 U.S. 395; 95 S. Ct. 2330; 45 L. Ed. 2d 272; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 75
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Marshall
- **Judges:** Burger, Marshall, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 1,316 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426161

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the exercise of judicial power under Article III depends upon the existence of a case or controversy and that federal courts have no power to render advisory opinions or to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them
- stating that a justiciable dispute involves "real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts"
- holding that a 8 No. 06-2453 prayer for prospective relief on a claim of unconstitutional transfer was moot because the prisoner had been re- turned to the initial facility with no foreseeable effect on future parole decisions
- holding that a prayer for prospective relief on a claim of unconstitutional transfer was moot because the prisoner had been returned to the initial facility with no foreseeable effect on future parole decisions
- explaining that federal courts have “neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them” (internal quotation marks omitted)

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring.
I join this opinion only because for some reason respondent did not file this case as a class action. As a result, the State of New York by releasing the other three named plaintiffs, transferring respondent back to Wallkill after the District Court action, and finally to a lesser correctional facility after the Court of Appeals acted, thereby made the case moot.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426161. Public record. Not legal advice.