Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that vacatur of the district court’s order was appropriate “because the party seeking appellate relief [wa]s not the party responsible for mooting the case, [and] the orderly operation of the appellate system is not being frustrated”
• concluding that appeal was moot because (1) agency promulgated a rule superseding challenged rule and thus the “portions of the [original rule] that were substantively challenged by [the appellant] no longer exist[ed]”; and (2
• holding that vacatur of the district court’s order was appropriate “because the party seeking appellate relief [wa]s not the party responsible for mooting the case, [and] the orderly operation of the appellate system is not being frustrated”
• noting that if a rule “were to reappear in the future, there would be ample opportunity to challenge the rule before it ceased to exist”
• explaining that “[v]acatur is generally not appropriate when mootness is a result of a voluntary act of a nonprevailing party”
• stating that a case is not moot where the court can presently determine the issues in a way that “will have some effect in the real world”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).