Commonwealth v. Moorhouse

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that federal court of appeals decisions interpreting federal law do not bind state courts interpreting the same issue; only the United States Supreme Court’s decisions on federal law are binding
• setting out a nonexclusive list of prudential considerations relevant to decision whether to review moot issues, including judicial economy and the relative public importance of the case
• identifying considerations bearing Cite as 313 Or App 804 (2021) 807 on whether to exercise discretion over moot cases and exer- cising discretion to address one of four assignments of error
• noting, and giving deference to additional (1) restrictions that reflect “EPA’s considered conclusion that suction dredge mining can result in the addition of pollutants to navigable waters in the form of suspended solids and ‘remobilized’ heavy metals,” and (2
• “[T]he regulations do not resolve whether the discharges resulting from suction dredge mining 13 Like Mr. Poe here, the petitioners in EOMA argued that the reference to “in-stream mining” in paragraph (i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).