Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Laurence and Mary Bodkin, Appellants, v. United States of America, Cross-appellants
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 266 F.2d 55
Submitted February 26, 1959 Decided April 15, 1959
Corcoran, Kostelanetz, Gladstone & Lowell, New York City, for appellants.
Before MADDEN, Judge, United States Court of Claims,* LUMBARD and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants' petition for rehearing after denial of its motion to dismiss the government's cross-appeal as moot is hereby granted. The appeal is moot because the appellant has stipulated to grant the government all the relief to which it could be entitled on a successful appeal. See e. g., Acheson v. Droesse, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 197 F.2d 574. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court's judgment, and remand with directions to dismiss the complaint. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36.
The government has argued that its interest in the effect of the district court's decision as precedent entitles it to a hearing on the merits in this court. It is well established that the interest of a litigant in a controversy solely for its effect as precedent is insufficient to sustain an appeal, see, e. g., Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, 1944, 321 U.S. 632, 64 S.Ct. 776, 88 L.Ed. 975, and that the value of the precedent may be measured when it is sought to be applied against the litigant in a subsequent case. See United States v. Sclafani, 2 Cir., 265 F.2d 408, which expressly disapproves Matter of Bodkin, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1958, 165 F.Supp. 25.