TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Shena MURPHY, Individually and as Next Friend to Terry Carter, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORT WORTH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Thomas Tocco, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellants

Murphy v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 334 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2003)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 18, 2003
Docket
No. 03-10415
Judges
King, Higginbotham, Stewart
Citations
334 F.3d 4702003 WL 21396868

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

During the six-week period between the entry of the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District, 258 F.Supp.2d 569 (N.D.Tex.2003), and the submission of this appeal on an expedited basis to our court, the high' school senior, Terry Carter, who is the subject of this appeal, graduated from high *471 school. His graduation moots this appeal. If a claim becomes moot after the entry of a district court’s judgment and prior to the completion of appellate review, we generally vacate the judgment and remand for dismissal.

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 , 71 S.Ct. 104 , 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) (observing that, where a case has become moot on appeal, “[t]he established practice ... is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss”). Vacatur of the lower court’s judgment is warranted only where mootness has occurred through happenstance, rather than through voluntary action of the losing party.

See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71 , 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (“Vacatur is in order when mootness occurs through happenstance — circumstances not attributable to the parties.”). Because the plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief have become moot through happenstance, we vacate the district court’s judgment and injunction.

On a related subject, whether the plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee for this appeal, we have held repeatedly that “a determination of mootness neither precludes nor is precluded by an award of attorneys’ fees. The attorneys’ fees question turns instead on a wholly independent consideration: whether plaintiff is a ‘prevailing party.’ ”

Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 120 (5th Cir.1980). The plaintiff is clearly the prevailing party and is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) to a reasonable attorney’s fee. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of such fee, the plaintiff shall submit an appropriate affidavit of counsel, the defendant shall have an opportunity to respond, and the court will determine the amount payable to counsel for the plaintiff.

The judgment and injunction entered by the district court is VACATED by reason of mootness. The defendant is ORDERED to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee for this appeal, the amount to be determined by the court if the parties are unable to agree.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
2003: 12004: 12007: 22008: 12015: 12018: 42020: 42021: 22022: 12023: 220032026peak 2018 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School DistrictNo. 1:18-cv-01091 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021)
  2. Thomas v. BryantNo. 3:18-cv-00441 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 11, 2021)
  3. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. AbbottNo. 1:16-cv-00233 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023)
  4. Environmental Conservation Organization v. City of Dallas529 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008)
  5. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. City of League City488 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2007)
  6. Staley v. Harris County TX485 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. AbbottNo. 1:16-cv-00233 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023)
  2. DOE v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLSNo. 2:23-cv-00409 (D. Me. Nov. 3, 2023)
  3. G. v. Harrison School District No. 240 F.4th 1186 (10th Cir. 2022)
  4. Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School DistrictNo. 1:18-cv-01091 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021)
  5. Thomas v. BryantNo. 3:18-cv-00441 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 11, 2021)
  6. Joseph Thomas v. Tate Reeves961 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 2020)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) 2,093
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) 1,736
Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1980) 87
Murphy v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 258 F. Supp. 2d 569 (N.D. Tex. 2003) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list