Epp v. Kerrey
| Decision Date | 14 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1536,91-1536 |
| Citation | 964 F.2d 754 |
| Parties | M. John EPP, M.D.; Plaintiff-Appellee Jane Doe, I, By her next friend Kathryn D. Levy; Jane Doe, II, By her next friend Kathryn D. Levy; Jane Doe, III, By her next friend Kathryn D. Levy, Intervenors Below, v. Robert KERREY, Governor of the State of Nebraska; Henry D. Smith, M.D., Director of Health of the State of Nebraska; Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska; Donald L. Knowles, County Attorney of Douglas County, Nebraska; John D. Coe, M.D.; Herbert Reese, M.D.; Hirim Hilton, M.D.; Warren R. Miller, M.D.; Leo T. Heywood, M.D.; Mike Swanda; Leland C. Lucke; Thelma D. Young, Members of the Nebraska Commission on Medical Qualifications, Defendants-Appellants. G. William ORR, M.D.; Women's Services, P.C., a Nebraska Professional Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald L. KNOWLES, County Attorney for the County of Douglas, Nebraska; Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska; Robert Kerrey, Governor of the State of Nebraska; Henry D. Smith, M.D., Director of the State of Nebraska; John D. Coe, M.D.; Herbert Reese, M.D.; Hirim Hilton, M.D.; Warren R. Miller, M.D.; Leo T. Heywood, M.D.; Michael Swanda; Leland C. Lucke; Thelma D. Young, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Steven Grasz, Lincoln, Neb., argued (Royce N. Harper, on the brief), for defendants-appellants.
Leslie D. Callahan, New York City, argued (Kim J. Landsman, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellees, doctors who operated abortion clinics in Omaha, commenced these lawsuits in 1981 against Nebraska state officials ("the State") challenging the constitutionality of Nebraska Legislative Bill 466, enacted May 28, 1981. One section of that Bill, codified as Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-347, prescribed parental notification and judicial by-pass procedures before minors could obtain abortions. On September 16, 1983, the district court 1 declared much of § 28-347 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing the invalidated provisions (the 1983 Injunction). The State did not appeal that injunction.
On July 27, 1990, the State moved to vacate the 1983 Injunction, arguing that recent Supreme Court cases had expanded states' authority to regulate abortions and thus changed controlling law. On October 31, 1990, the district court denied the motion. Without reaching the merits of the State's legal arguments, the district court concluded that there was no showing of the inequity required to justify relief from a permanent injunction under the "grievous wrong" standard of United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 463, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932), as followed by this court in Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. American Oil Co., 405 F.2d 803, 813 (8th Cir.1969). Rather than appeal the October 31 order, the State filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the district court on November 9, 1990. The district court denied this motion in an order dated February 20, 1991, and the State then filed this appeal.
While this appeal was pending, Nebraska enacted Legislative Bill 425 (1991). This new law has completely revised the State's parental notification and judicial by-pass requirements. It also explicitly repealed § 28-347.
The repeal of § 28-347 has mooted the State's contention that recent Supreme Court decisions require us to reconsider the 1983 Injunction. See Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 128-29, 97 S.Ct. 1709, 1714-15, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969); Coleman v. Lyng, 864 F.2d 604, 611-12 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 953, 110 S.Ct. 364, 107 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). Unlike City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982), relied upon by the State in opposing appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, this case does not present an "exceptional circumstance" in which the dispute is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 481, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). There is no evidence here that the State intends to reenact the repealed statute, nor that any such legislative action could "evade review."
When a civil case becomes moot pending appeal, the appellate court normally vacates the order being appealed and remands to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). Treating the "case" here as the proceedings commenced by the State's July 1990 motion to vacate the 1983 Injunction, we agree that the district court orders challenged on appeal should be vacated. Mootness has prevented review of the district court's response to the motion to vacate and to the subsequent motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps-Roper v. Heineman
...City of Bellevue intends to reenact the repealed ordinances, Phelps-Roper's claims are moot and will be dismissed. See Epp v. Kerrey, 964 F.2d 754, 755-56 (8th Cir.1992). 3. Motion to Dismiss, Abstain, or Stay with Protective Order The Court will dismiss Phelps-Roper's claims that she may a......
-
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie
...Advantage alleges were remedied after this action commenced, which would moot any claim for injunctive relief. See Epp v. Kerrey, 964 F.2d 754, 755-56 (8th Cir.1992). As we previously noted, however, Advantage has also maintained a claim for damages and attorney fees, so its challenges are ......
-
Sweeton v. Brown, s. 92-1441
...the right to litigate defenses must be respected), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993); Epp v. Kerrey, 964 F.2d 754, 756 (8th Cir.1992) (declining to vacate a nine year old injunction against state officials in part because "the State slept on its rights when......
-
Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dept. of Corrections, 1:04-cv-013.
...repealed applies whether the statute was repealed prior to the complaint or during the pendency of the litigation. Epp v. Kerrey, 964 F.2d 754, 755-56 (8th Cir. 1992). The Court finds that the expiration of Sections 12-44.1-06.2 and 12-44.1-06.3 renders the female inmates' claims moot based......