Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Peter McCauley v. Trans Union, L.L.C., Docket No. 04-1386-Cv.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peter McCauley v. Trans Union, L.L.C., Docket No. 04-1386-Cv Anchor | green | “rejected settlement offer under rule 68, by itself, cannot render moot a case.” | 5 |
| 2 | United States v. Wiltshire | green | “the case or controversy clause of article iii, section 2 of the united states constitution limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts such that the 'parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” | 5 |
| 3 | Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc. | green | “as rule 68 operates, if an offer is made for a plaintiff's maximum recovery, his action may be rendered moot.” | 3 |
| 4 | Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. | green | “an unaccepted rule 68 offer that would have fully satisfied a plaintiff's claim does not render that claim moot . . . as a result of the language, structure and purposes of rule 68 and . . . fundamental principles governing mootness” | 3 |
| 5 | Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. | green | “the second circuit has produced several opinions addressing this question; other courts interpreting these opinions have come to opposite views about the second circuit's position without ever acknowledging these divergent interpretations.” | 3 |
| 6 | Thorogood v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. | green | “the offer exceeded the amount in controversy and so the case was moot.” | 3 |
| 7 | Jeffrey M. Stein D.D.S. M.S.D. P.A. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership | green | “giving controlling effect to an unaccepted rule 68 offer . . . is flatly inconsistent with the rule” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.