Fultz v. Rose Fultz v. Rose

Fultz v. Rose

C09.40109; 833 F.2d 1380 (1987)

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

Before: Arthur L. Alarcon, Dorothy W. Nelson and Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges. Order DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS MOOT The appeal in the above captioned action is hereby DISMISSED as moot. An appeal must be dismissed as moot when intervening events that do not involve wrongful conduct by the appellee leave the appellate court unable to grant effective relief. In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 187 (9th Cir. 1977). Fultz sold the Rose property to Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins in compliance with the district court's March 7, 1986 order. Because Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins are not parties to this action, we are no longer able to grant any effective relief from that order or to reach the merits of this appeal.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1987
11 de diciembre
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
1
Página
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
47.6
KB

Más libros de United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Thomas Patrick Keating v. United States Thomas Patrick Keating v. United States
1969
Buono v. Norton Buono v. Norton
2004
United States v. Navidad-Marcos United States v. Navidad-Marcos
2004
United States v. Joyce United States v. Joyce
2004
In re Marshall In re Marshall
2004
Jones v. E*Trade Mortgage Corporation Jones v. E*Trade Mortgage Corporation
2005