Grindle v. Chastain

How courts have described this case

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

• “[t]he primary criterion in making [the mootness] determination is whether the appellant would derive any benefit from the appeal” of the moot issue
• jury’s rejection of defendant’s arguments in the first trial settled the disputed issue where the evidence at the second trial was substantially the same
• jury’s rejection of defendant’s arguments in the first trial settled the disputed issue where the evidence at the second trial was substantially the same
• the law of the case rule applied, despite a change in evidentiary posture, where the new evidence was “substantially the same” as the prior evidence
• “To prevent the appeal of a mandatory injunction from becoming moot, it is necessary for the appealing party to obtain a supersedeas.”
• case is moot where appellant would derive no benefit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).