In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused by this ruling.
The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals "to dismiss the
appeal as moot." (Emphasis added.) The appeal was apparently only from the
district court’s denial of petitioner’s (plaintiff's) motion for a
preliminary injunction. The request for an injunction is moot because the
plaintiff
graduated. But Prof. Friedman's blog says that the compliant also sought
damages; that claim could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation
and
presumably remains pending in the district court, where it will still require
a decision on the merits, unless the case settles.
What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that "The
district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing petitioner’
s claims for injunctive relief as moot." Ordinarily, a district court could
not enter a "final judgment" unless it dispopsed of all claims against all
parties. I wonder if the district court here entered a partial final judgment
under the special procedure of Rule 54(b), or if someone (the district judge,
the Supreme Court, Prof. Friedman, me) is just confused?
Art Spitzer
Washington DC
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
