Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)

Citation
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Parent Document
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Effective Date
2003-11-19

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text

785 chars
6
In normal course, having held that the case was moot and that we lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we would proceed no furtherFirestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 450 U.S. 1028, 101 S.Ct. 1736, 68 L.Ed.2d 222 (1981). Here, however, we digress from that principle because we believe that some guidance should be afforded to the bench and bar pertaining to the test for determining when a court ordered decree challenged under Rule 60(b) should be set aside as having lost its utility. The District Court in this case looked to whether a conflict existed between the provisions of the Consent Decree and the subsequently enacted regulations and statute. Having determined that no conflict existed, the Consent Decree's operation was continued and the challenge to it was rejected.