Kennecott UT Copper v. United Steelworkers

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining permissible amendments to final awards must not “augment[] or alter[] the award in any way other than clarifying”
• permitting arbitrator to explain whether he intended to include back pay in the award
• “The core question in mootness inquiry is whether 8 granting a present determination of the issues offered . . . will have some effect in the real 9 world.”
• “[Plaintiff] has thus failed to demonstrate that the letter augmented or altered the award in any way.... The letter thus fell within the clarification and/or completion exceptions to the functus officio doctrine.”
• “The core question in a mootness inquiry is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered ... will have some effect in the real world.” (citation and quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).