Equitable mootness is a judge-made remedy that is misnamed. Judges apply it to seek an equitable result, but mootness in the constitutional sense is absent.
Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution bars federal courts from hearing matters that are moot, because no case or controversy exists. But, in contrast, equitable mootness applies when courts voluntarily decline to hear matters even when cases or controversies are present. "[T]here is a big difference between inability to alter the outcome (real mootness) and unwillingness to alter the outcome ('equitable mootness'). Using one word for two different concepts breeds confusion." In re UNR Indus., Inc., 20 F.3d 766, 769 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 999 (1994).
To read the full text of this article please click here
Originally published in January 2014 edition of The Bankruptcy Strategist
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.