Legal Opinion
Armster v. United States District Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 22, 1986No. Nos. 86-7354, 86-7362PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOTION TO VACATE FOR MOOTNESS
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Respondent United States District Court for the Central District of California, by its counsel the Department of Justice, has moved to vacate our decision filed on June 26, 1986 in these consolidated mandamus proceedings on the ground that the proceedings are now moot. We deny Respondent’s motion. Respondent’s counsel misunderstands the nature of the proceedings in this Court, the basis of our supervisory authority over district courts, the grounds of petitioners’ prayers for the writs of mandamus, and the law governing mootness.
*1349I.…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Sibron v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Foster v. CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Matthew Brach v. Gavin NewsomCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Earl A. Humphreys, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Jesus Perez GarciaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.