Goldin v. Bartholow

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating because appellees caused the mootness by failing to substitute the proper defendant
• “[A] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”
• “[A] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.”
• “[W]hile intervenors may proceed under Rule 24 without meeting the standing requirements, if they are the sole party to take an appeal they must independently satisfy Article III.”
• “[T]he instrument is not one which requires the insertion of the statutory default term. It is a liquidating trust. We find the imposition of further time for liquidation—winding-up—inconsistent with its terms.”
• “When the trust terminates, the trustee no longer has any personal, substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation. His lack of standing would thus render the trust’s claims against the appellees moot from the moment of termination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).