Firebaugh Canal Water Dist. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that mootness may arise when “a defendant surrenders . . . ‘complete relief’” (quotation omitted)
• holding that a tender of payment under Rule 67 did not moot the plaintiff’ s claims
• acknowledging that a plaintiff’s claim will become moot for purposes of Article III when “a defendant surrenders . . . complete relief” (cleaned up)
• noting that “a lawsuit—or an individual claim—becomes moot when a plaintiff actually receives all of the relief he or she could receive on the claim through further litigation.” (emphasis altered; quotation marks omitted)
• extending Campbell-Ewald’s reasoning to a Rule 67 deposit of funds with the court
• \Rule 67 'is just a procedural mechanism that allows a party to use the court as an escrow agent.'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).