LAKE COAL CO., INC.
v.
ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO.
LAKE COAL CO., INC.
ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO.
474 U.S. 120
Supreme Court of the United States (1985)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 88 L. Ed. 2d 418 · 106 S. Ct. 553 · 1985 U.S. LEXIS 3075 · SCDB 1985-012
Cited by 55 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion of the parties requesting the Court to decide the questions presented in the petition for writ of certiorari despite complete settlement of the underlying causes of action is denied. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974).
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky with instructions to dismiss the cause as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1994)…breadth of the rule, see, e. g., Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U. S. 92, 93 (1979) (per curiam); and at least some of those cases specifically involved mootness by reason of settlement, see, e. g., Lake Coal Co. v. Roberts & Schaeffer Co., 474 U. S. 120 (1985) (per curiam). But Munsingwear, and the post -Munsingwear practice, cannot bear the weight of the present case. To begin with, the portion of Justice Douglas’ opinion in Munsingwear describing the “established practice” for vacatur was dictum…
-
N. Alaska Env't Ctr. v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1986)…rocedure § 3533.2, at 238-39 (2d ed. 1984) (individual issues may be mooted by defendant’s voluntary compliance). Federal courts cannot decide moot issues that the parties seek to have resolved. Lake Coal Co. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 553, 554, 88 L.Ed.2d 418 (1985): United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 794 F. 2d 1402, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1986). . We do not consider AMA’s argument based on public access over state routes because it was not made below. . 36 C.F.R. § 9.10(g) provides:…
-
Cameron-Grant v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003)…plaintiffs under § 216(b) of the FLSA may be reviewed on appeal after the named plaintiffs personal claims have become “moot.” The general rule is that settlement of a plaintiffs claims moots an action. See Lake Coal Co. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 474 U.S. 120, 106 S.Ct. 553, 554, 88 L.Ed.2d 418 (1985); Hammond Clock Co. v. Schiff, 293 U.S. 529, 530, 55 S.Ct. 146, 79 L.Ed. 639 (1934). In the Rule 23 class action context, however, unique mootness principles may apply — when the named plaintiff seeks to ha…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeFUNIS v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1974)