Mary Frances Berry v. Ronald Reagan, President, United States of Am., 732 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Mary Frances Berry v. Ronald Reagan, President, United States of Am., 732 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scahill v. District of Columbia (dcd, 2017-09-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scahill v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Askew v. Hargrave, 401 U.S. 476, 478 , 91 S.Ct. 856 , 28 L.Ed.2d 196 (1971) (holding that abstention may be called for when a state-court case brings state-law “claims, [which,] if sustained, will obviate the necessity of determining the [constitutional] question”); see also Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 , 143 n.10, 96 S.Ct. 2857 , 49 L.Ed.2d 844 (1976) ("[A]bstention may be raised by the court [s]ua sponte.”); Justice v. Superior Court, 732 F.2d 949, 950 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" Leblanc v. United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
D.D.C. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" JMM Corp. v. District of Columbia
D.C. Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
One is Pullman abstention, which holds that “when a federal constitutional claim is premised on an unsettled question of state law, the federal court should stay its hand in order to provide the state courts an opportunity to settle the underlying state-law question and thus avoid the possibility of unnecessarily deciding a constitutional question.” Harris County Comm’rs Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77, 83 , 95 S.Ct. 870, 874-75 , 43 L.Ed.2d 32 (1975) (citing Railroad Comm’n v. Pull *1125 man Co., 312 U.S. 496 , 61 S.Ct. 643 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941)); see Justice v. Superior Ct. of District o…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cook v. Trump
D.D.C. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Aviel, 780 F. Supp. 3d at 14; Aviel, 2025 WL 2374618 , at *15; see also Berry, 1983 WL 538 , at *5, vacated as moot, 732 F.2d 949 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Wood
E.D. Pa. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Justice v. Superior Court, 732 F.2d 949, 950 (D.C.Cir.) (affirming Pullman abstention despite a facial and as applied constitutional challenge to District of Columbia’s conservatorship statute); Kasap v. Moritz, 613 F.2d 138 (6th Cir.1980) (affirming Pullman abstention in case involving litigation over Ohio’s involuntary commitment procedures).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Frances BERRY, Et Al.
v.
Ronald REAGAN, President, United States of America, Appellant
83-2184.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 20, 1984.
732 F.2d 949
Robert’E. Kopp, Alfred Mollin, J. Paul McGrath and Richard K. Willard, Attys., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant., Eric Schnapper, New York City, Elaine R. Jones, Washington, D.C., Barry L. Gold-stein, Yonkers, N.Y., Brent E. Simmons, New York City, and Jack Greenberg, Yonkers, N.Y., by special leave of Court, for appellees.
Wilkey, Mikva, McGowan.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for summary reversal and for a stay pending appeal, appellees’ opposition, appellant’s reply thereto, and the oral argument of the parties, it is

ORDERED by the Court that, the statutory period for the existence of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as presently constituted having expired, 42 U.S.C. § 1975c(d), the judgment of the district court is vacated and this cause is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the suit as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 93-94, 99 S.Ct. 2149, 2149-50, 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979) (per curiam). In Kalaris v. Donovan, 697 F.2d 376, 389-401 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3088, 77 L.Ed.2d 1349 (1983), this court most recently visited the delicate area of tenure of office. There is no occasion to reaffirm any of its teachings in the case sub judice.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Court.