Thomas Clayton Baldwin, s/k/a, etc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding any error resulting from ex parte proceeding was cured by subsequent hearing on the same issue at which the defendant submitted evidence and argument
• “The general rule [is] that appellate courts do not sit to give opinions on moot questions.” (alteration in original) (quoting Hallmark v. Jones, 207 Va. 968, 971 (1967))
• “[A]ppellate courts do not sit to give opinions on moot questions or abstract matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation.” (quoting Hallmark v. Jones, 207 Va. 968, 971 (1967))
• “‘[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live,”’ Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969), because ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review,’ to escape the notion that a case is moot, Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).