|
|
U.S. Bancorp Mtg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
U.S. Bancorp Mtg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1974)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership No. 93-714 Argued October 4, 1994 Decided November 8, 1994 513 U.S. 18
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
After this Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari and received briefing on the merits, the parties entered into a settlement and agreed that the case was thereby mooted. Petitioner, however, also requested that the Court exercise its power under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Respondent opposed the motion.
Held:
1. This Court does not lack the power to entertain petitioner’s motion to vacate. Section 2106 supplies the vacatur power, and respondent’s suggestion is rejected that Article III’s case or controversy requirement prohibits the exercise of that power when no live dispute exists due to a settlement that has mooted the case. Although Article III prevents the Court from considering the merits of a judgment that has become moot while awaiting review, the Court may nevertheless make such disposition of the whole case as justice may require. Walling v. Reuter Co., 321 U.S. 671, 677. Pp. 20-22.
2. Mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a federal civil judgment under review. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, and subsequent cases distinguished. Equitable principles have always been implicit in this Court’s exercise of the vacatur power, and the principal equitable factor to which the Court has looked is whether the party seeking vacatur caused the mootness by voluntary action. Where mootness results from settlement, the losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim to the extraordinary equitable remedy of vacatur. It is irrelevant that the party who won below also agreed to the settlement, since it is the losing party who has the burden of demonstrating equitable entitlement to vacatur. This result is supported by the public interest in the orderly operation of the federal judicial system; petitioner’s countervailing policy arguments are not persuasive. Although exceptional circumstances may conceivably justify vacatur when mootness results from settlement, such circumstances do not include the mere fact that the settlement agreement provides for vacatur. Pp. 22-29.
Motion to vacate denied and case dismissed as moot. Reported below: 2 F.3d 899.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," U.S. Bancorp Mtg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1974) in 513 U.S. 18 513 U.S. 19. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=E8WTARWWZNMY3HF.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." U.S. Bancorp Mtg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1974), in 513 U.S. 18, page 513 U.S. 19. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=E8WTARWWZNMY3HF.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in U.S. Bancorp Mtg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1974). cited in 1974, 513 U.S. 18, pp.513 U.S. 19. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=E8WTARWWZNMY3HF.
|