holding that an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from temporarily closing certain tuna fisheries was moot because the fisheries had reopened by the time the appeal was argued
How later courts described this case
- holding that an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from temporarily closing certain tuna fisheries was moot because the fisheries had reopened by the time the appeal was argued
- holding that the “appeal of the district court’s denial of its application for a preliminary injunction is moot” because the regulation sought to be enjoined was no longer in effect
- holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendant’s directive no longer in effect
- defining “preceding year” in 16 U.S.C. § 1416 as the calendar year immediately before the current calendar year
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYMER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although as a practical matter it makes good sense to go ahead and resolve the appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment, it is only a partial summary *1412 judgment. Since the preliminary injunction is moot, the partial summary judgment doesn’t seem to me to act to deny any preliminary relief. Because I think we therefore lack jurisdiction over the summary judgment issues, I concur only in Parts La and 2 of the opinion.