ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAILROAD YARDMASTERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that when a case becomes moot while an appeal is pending, the proper procedure is to vacate the lower court's order and direct dismissal of the complaint.
The National Railway Adjustment Board's decision rendered the substantive issue moot after an appeal was filed. Appellant moved to recall the court's …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
When the substantive issue involved in this case was decided by the National Railway Adjustment Board, this Court dismissed the appeal as moot. The appellant has, by motion, urged that our judgment dismissing the appeal be recalled and vacated and that we reverse the injunctive order of the district court and direct that the complaint be dismissed. We conclude that the motion should be granted. The approved procedure, when a case has become moot while an appeal is pending, is to vacate or reverse the order or judgment from which the appeal was taken, “with directions * * * to dismiss the bill of complaint * * *, because the controversy involved has become moot and, therefore, no longer a subject appropriate for judicial action.” Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971. See also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 299 U.S. 259, 57 S.Ct. 202, 81 L.Ed. 178; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 43 S.Ct. 263, 67 L.Ed. 620; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814; United States v. Hamburg-American Line, 239 U.S. 466, 36 S.Ct. 212, 60 L.Ed. 387. But see Verret v. Oil Transport Co., 365 U.S. 768, 81 S.Ct. 911, 6 L.Ed.2d 83.
Our reversal of the district court’s injunctive order is not to be regarded as a determination of the propriety of the issuance of the order. The sole ground of our reversal is that the cause has become moot.
The judgment of this Court dismissing the appeal is recalled, vacated and set aside. The order of the district court is vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint and the action.
Prior judgment recalled and vacated.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lebus v. Seafarers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 398 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
Tyson v. Lt. Clarence J. Cazes, 363 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1966)
-
Ferd Allen v. Johnson, 413 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 299 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1936)
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)
- Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1923)
- Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13 (U.S. 1922)
- Sampere v. New Orleans, 279 U.S. 812 (U.S. 1929)
- United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812 (U.S. 1929)
- Verret v. OIL Transp. Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 768 (U.S. 1961)