Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that situation did not satisfy evading-review prong where, if same issue arose again, it would not inevitably moot prior to review
• no meaningful distinction, in terms of finality, between an order authorizing retention of counsel and order denying retention of counsel
• “[A] case becomes moot . . . when it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party.”
• “We focus on . . . whether the elapsed time that gave rise to mootness would always limit judicial review of the question presented . . . .”
• “Because the Trustee has the ability to seek a stay and an expedited appeal, the retention issue presented by this appeal did not inevitably—and, if it arises again, will not inevitably—lapse into mootness prior to review.”
• order refusing to allow trustee to hire law firm was final

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).