Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a case may survive mootness upon a change of circumstances,” so long as parties have a cognizable legal interest in the outcome of the litigation
• holding that “[a] party aggrieved by a lower court’s decision on a motion to disqualify an attorney may properly challenge the lower’s court’s decision by way of a petition for a writ of prohibition.” (Emphasis added)
• recognizing “the inherent authority courts possess to maintain the integrity of the judicial process which may, in certain circumstances, necessitate the disqualification of counsel”
• discussing mootness and, among other cases, citing Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W. Va. 684, 60 S.E. 873 (1908
• “[A] case, although live at the start, becomes moot when intervening acts destroy the interest of a party to the adjudication.”
• “Whether an attorney-client relationship has been established is a matter of contract, and such contract may be evidenced either by written agreement or by implication.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).