K. P. v. Lorraine LeBlanc

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no standing where defendant lacked authority to enforce statute and therefore could not redress harm
• addressing standing before 14 Case: 23-40629 Document: 103-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/17/2025 No. 23-40629 VII. The district court dismissed this case for lack of standing. We agree and AFFIRM. mootness
• rejecting the argument that voluntary cessation established an Eleventh Amendment bar and noting that a different conclusion “would work an end-run around the voluntary-cessation exception to mootness where a state actor is involved.”
• noting the law-of-the- case “rule provides that an issue of law or fact decided on appeal may not be reexamined either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal” (internal quotations omitted)
• \[a] defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its [challenged] conduct once sued.\
• “We cannot reach the merits of this claim; our rule of orderliness compels us to abide the interpretation of state law pronounced in [K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115 (5th Cir. 2010)].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).