Filed March 23, 2020
Thus, federal courts are restricted to adjudicating “actual, ongoing cases 3 or controversies.” Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 193 (3d Cir. 2001). “If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a [petitioner’s] personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”
Filed May 12, 2017
relief thus depends upon the validity of that superseded 2007 version, and so her request for declaration that it was ultra vires and void cannot be moot. B. Where Application of a Superseded Ordinance Caused Damages to a Plaintiff, Amendment of the Ordinance Does Not Moot Such Claims The 2015 Order cites Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) ("Khodara") for the proposition that because "the 2003 zoning ordinance is not longer the Township's most current applicable zoning ordinance, [ ] a facial challenge to the 2003 ordinance would now be moot." Slip op.
Filed August 8, 2016
Article III of the United States Constitution requires that the federal courts adjudicate “‘actual, ongoing cases or controversies.’” County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2001)). “If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or Case 2:16-cv-01507-CDJ Document 22 Filed 08/08/16 Page 9 of 18 10 prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”