Climax Molybdenum Company v. Secretary Of Labor (1983)
green
· 27 citation events
across 12 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198320042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
See Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.2011); see also Pharmacia Corp. v. Suggs, 932 So.2d 95 , 97 n. 4 (Ala.[2005]) (indicating that Section 139 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 similarly empowers this state’s judiciary to “ ‘decide discrete cases and controversies involving particular parties and specific facts’ ” rather than answering abstract questions) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of Alabama, 740 So.2d…
See Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.2011); see also Pharmacia Corp. v. Suggs, 932 So.2d 95 , 97 n. 4 (Ala.[2005]) (indicating that Section 139 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 similarly empowers this state’s judiciary to “ ‘decide discrete cases and controversies involving particular parties and specific facts” ’ rather than answering abstract questions) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of Alabama, 740 So.2d…
See Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.2011); see also Pharmacia Corp. v. Suggs, 932 So.2d 95 , 97 n. 4 (Ala.1999) (indicating that Section 139 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 similarly empowers this state’s judiciary to “ ‘decide discrete cases and controversies involving particular parties and specific facts’” rather than answering abstract questions) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of Alabama, 740 So.2d 37…
yellow
McCall v. Alabama State Personnel Board (2008)
But see Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 703 F.2d 447 , 451 (10th Cir.1983) (a federal administrative agency is not bound by the federal constitutional requirement of a 'case or controversy' that limits the authority of federal courts to rule on moot issues; rather, such an agency "possesses substantial discretion in determining whether the resolution of an issue before it is precluded by mootness”). .
green
Betty Jones v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United… (1988)
See also Illinois Psychological Association v. Falk, 818 F.2d 1337, 1343 (7th Cir.1987); Climax Molybdenum Company, A Division of Amax Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 703 F.2d 447, 451 (10th Cir.1983).
See Climax, 703 F.2d at 451.
See generally Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, 703 F.2d 447 , 451 (10th Cir.1983) ("[A]n agency possesses substantial discretion in determining whether the resolution of an issue before it is precluded by mootness.
green
Pearsall v. Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (2003)
See, e.g., Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 703 F.2d 447 (10th Cir.1983); cf. Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc., 404 U.S. 412 , 92 S.Ct. 574 , 30 L.Ed.2d 567 (1972); Bahnmiller, 923 F.2d at 1089 ; Friends of Keeseville, Inc. v. FERC, 859 F.2d 230, 232 (D.C.Cir.1988); Taylor v. United, States, 528 F.2d 60, 64 (7th Cir.1976).
Cir. 1979) (“[A]gencies are generally free to act in advisory or legislative capacities . . . . [A]n agency may, if authorized by statute, issue an advisory opinion or abstract declaration without regard to the existence of an actual controversy.”); see also Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Lab., Mine Safety & Health Admin., 703 F.2d 447, 451 (10th Cir. 1983) (“[A]n administrative agency is not bound by the constitutional requirement of a ‘case or controversy’ that limits the author…
green
the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of… (2015)
See generally Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, 703 F.2d 447, 451 (10th Cir.1983) (“[A]n agency possesses substantial discretion in determining whether the resolution of an issue before it is precluded by mootness.