Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michigan Bell Telephone Company v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 7, 1977No. 76-2202, 76-2203Published

1DissentCelebrezze, Circuit Judge

I am able to agree with the majority on neither the threshold issue of mootness nor the merits of this case. I respectfully dissent.

The majority concedes that this case is moot, yet proposes to consider this appeal as coming within the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. While the facts of this case are capable of repetition, they will not necessarily keep evading review. A stay by the district court or a Judge of this Court, as well as a contempt citation, could preserve an actual controversy for review in a future case. Thus this case does not come…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Application of the United States of America in the Matter of an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register or Similar Mechanical DeviceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. United States v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
  3. In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register/touch-Tone Decoder on the Telephone Line Bearing the Number 305-921, Etc. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) v. United States of America, in the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register/touch-Tone Decoder on the Telephone Line Bearing the Number 305-920, Etc. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API