Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Watkins v. Mabus

502 U.S. 954

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1991-11-12
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • effectuating Munsingwear 4 mootness procedure in appeal mooted only in part by intervening events

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Watkins v. Mabus. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions

Appeal from D. C. S. D. Miss. Judgment affirmed except with respect to appellants' claim that the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act apply to the changes in the absentee ballot procedures adopted for the September 17 election ordered by the District Court. The completion of the September 17 election has rendered this claim moot with regard *955 to the relief sought, i. e., an order enjoining the September 17 election for failure to comply with preclearance requirements. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the judgment below with instructions to dismiss the relevant part of the complaint. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U. S. 490, 512-513 (1989); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950).

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.