Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

holding that no Article III case or controversy exists where the parties to an action desire “precisely the same result” | finding “no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III” where both parties agreed the law was constitutional and required setting aside a district court order | dismissing case when both sides argued that a law was constitutional and should be upheld | finding no case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution where “both litigants desire[d] precisely the same result” | finding no “case or controversy” where both parties to the suit had.argued that the statute was constitutional and urged that a desegregation order be set aside | considering “the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional,” and holding “[t]here is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution” | both parties to the lawsuit jointly sought a judicial determination that an anti-busing statute was unconstitutional | no case or controversy where both parties argued that statute was constitutional | If “both litigants desire precisely the same result,” then “no case or controversy” persists. | case dismissed based on lack of case or controversy where both sides argued that an anti-busing law was constitu- tional, thus “confront[ing]” the Court “with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result” | case dismissed based on lack of case or controversy where both sides argued that an anti-busing law was constitutional, thus “con- front[ing]” the Court “with the anomaly that both litigants desire precise- ly the same result”