Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because the district court was divested of jurisdiction by the filing of an appeal, the district court’s subsequent order vacating the order under appeal was “a nullity”
• holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief
• explaining that to “set aside” a sale, the appellant “would be required” to join the buyers as parties
• providing that “an appeal will not affect the validity of 24 a judgment or order during the pendency of the appeal, absent a stay or supersedeas”
• noting that FRCP 21 62(b) permits a party to obtain a stay “as a matter of right by posting a supersedeas bond,” and finding that because no bond was posted, “the grant or denial of the stays was a matter strictly 22 within the judge’s discretion”
• after district court decision, trustee in bankruptcy disposed of property; appeal was moot since purchasers and other interested parties were not before court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).