Legal Document

423 U.S. 147 96 Supreme Court Reporter 347 46 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 350 Robert WEINSTEIN et al.v.Howard E. BRADFORD. Number 74-1287. Dec. 10, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Bradford sued petitioner members of the North Carolina Board Parole in District for Eastern Carolina, claiming that petitioners were obligated under Fourteenth Amendment Constitution to accord him certain procedural rights considering his eligibility parole. Although respondent sought certification action as a class action, refused so certify it and dismissed complaint. On respondent's appeal Appeals Fourth Circuit, court sustained claim he was constitutionally entitled connection with petitioners' consideration application Because conclusion at odds decisions several other Courts Appeals, we granted certiorari on June 2, 1975, 421 998, 95 2394, 44 664 case set oral argument during December calendar this Court. 2 has now filed suggestion mootness Court, have response. It is undisputed temporarily paroled 18, 1974, status ripened into complete release from supervision March 25, From date forward plain can no interest whatever procedures followed by granting 3 Conceding fact, urge an issue which "capable repetition, yet evading review" term been used our cases dealing mootness. Petitioners rely Super Tire Engineering company versus McCorkle, 416 115, 94 1694, 40 (1974), support their contention not moot. But there posture parties quite different. Petitioner employer engaged cyclically recurring bargaining union representing its employees, state official continuously following policy paying unemployment compensation benefits strikers. Even though particular strike had occasion filing lawsuit terminated, held enough showed "the existence immediate definite governmental or adversely affected continues affect present interest," noted great majority economic strikes do last long judicial review controversies they engender." Id., 125-126, 1700. instant case, respondent, who challenged "governmental policy" question, longer any policy. 4 In Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 553, 42 532 (1975), reviewed some detail historical developments doctrine Southern Pacific Terminal ICC, 219 498, 31 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911), first enunciate branch law There because short duration Interstate Commerce Commission order challenged, virtually impossible litigate validity prior expiration. additional fact same party would all probability be subject kind future, allowed even question expired own terms. This Moore Ogilvie, 394 814, 89 1493, 23 (1969); SEC Medical Committee Human Rights, 404 403, 92 577, 30 560 (1972); Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 995, 274 (1972), applied original concept ICC different situations, including Dunn. 5 decided absence limited situation where two elements combined: (1) too fully litigated cessation expiration, (2) reasonable expectation complaining subjected again. The clearly does satisfy latter element. While will continue administer parole system respect those given moment are jurisdiction, demonstrated again among number. O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 669, 38 674 (1974). 6 appearing, therefore, moot, judgment vacated, remanded instructions dismiss Indianapolis School Comm'rs Jacobs, 420 128, 848, 43 74 (1975); Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 71 104, 36 (1950). 7 So ordered.

Classification Label: 8