Document: 442 U.S. 92 99 S.Ct. 2149 60 L.Ed.2d 735 GREAT WESTERN SUGAR CO.v.Edward L. NELSON. No. 78-1060. May 29, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Nelson sued in the United States District Court for of Colorado to compel arbitration his discharge by petitioner Great Western Sugar Co. The held that presumption arbitrability consistently applied Appeals Tenth Circuit required dispute be submitted arbitration. Before petitioner's appeal from Court's order could decided on merits, proceedings had been completed, and respondent filed a suggestion mootness with Appeals. Appeals, an opinion admirable its conciseness, if not fidelity our case law, said: 2 "This matter comes consideration appellee's motion vacate judgment remand captioned cause instructions dismiss. appellant brief response arguing allowed continue but trial court should reversed remanded directions 3 "Upon whereof, is as follows: 4 "1. dismissed ground mootness. 5 "2. stand." App. Pet. Cert. A5. 6 In Duke Power v. Greenwood County, 299 259, 267, 57 202, 205, 81 L.Ed. 178 (1936), this 7 "Where it appears upon controversy has become entirely moot, duty appellate set aside decree below dismiss." (Emphasis supplied.) 8 course action prescribed followed countless cases Court. See, e. g., Preiser Newkirk, 422 395, 95 2330, 45 272 (1975); Parker Ellis, 362 574, 80 909, 963 (1960); Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 71 104, 36 (1950).* 9 Here neither law nor facts are dispute. proceeded assumption moot reason. It nonetheless stated shall remain effect, statement totally at odds holding ofDuke Power. reasons allowing effect when fact properly called attention were fully supra, 39-41, S.Ct., 106-107, need restated here. Appeals' disposition may have result desire show approval reasoning directing arbitration, motive cannot excuse failure follow teaching Co., supra. 10 Because clear, indeed relied reason dismissing appeal, because laid down equally petition certiorari granted, vacated, dismissal respondent's complaint. 11 so ordered. 12 Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting. 13 If we time grant sole purpose correcting highly technical harmless error, one might reasonably (but incorrectly) infer more than enough dispatch important business. 14 I would deny writ certiorari. * perhaps leading proper appeal. There reiterated "[t]he established practice dealing civil federal system which while way here or pending decision merits reverse direction U.S., 39, 106.

Category: 8