Equitable vs. Constitutional Mootness: The Eleventh Circuit Provides a Primer
Explore the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguish it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.
A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) does just that. In its analysis, the court distinguished between equitable and constitutional mootness. Equitable mootness is a discretionary doctrine under which a court may dismiss a bankruptcy appeal when it would be impossible to grant effective relief. In contrast, constitutional mootness derives directly from the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Mark Salzberg is a partner in the Washington DC office and a member of the firm’s Restructuring & Insolvency practice group. He focuses his practice on bankruptcy litigation, creditors’ rights, debtor reorganizations and complex commercial litigation. Mark has extensive experience representing debtors, creditors’ committees, financial institutions, secured and unsecured creditors, franchisors and distributors in bankruptcy matters throughout the United States.
All of your training, right here at Lorman.
Pay once and get a full year of unlimited training
in any format, any time!
White Papers and Articles
Sponsored Live Webinars
Additional benefits include:
State Specific Credit Tracker
Members Only Newsletter
All-Access Pass Course Concierge
* For audio recordings you only pay shipping
Questions? Call 877-296-2169 to speak with a real person.
You can Login to access if you are already registered.