Jess Cancino v. Walter E. Craven, in Re Roger S. Hanson, Attorney at Law

Hanson says that this case is not mooted because of “the attending consequences that [his] conviction may have on his future career for a political office, for a judgeship, or for loss of clients.” We cannot agree that the minor contretemps in which he was involved in the district court, in its context, created any possibility of impairing his political career, his possibilities of getting a judgeship, or that it conceivably could cause him to lose any clients.

We have heretofore ordered this appeal dismissed for failure to file it timely. On his petition for rehearing, an accommodating chief deputy clerk at Los Angeles has given Hanson an affidavit to give to this court to impeach the record on the filing stamp on the notice of appeal in the district court. If the filing stamp is incorrect, it might well be that the chief deputy’s formal confession of error should be first made to the chief judge of the district. Ordinarily, on a posture of the sort we have here, we would remand the case to the district court to consider what the record should be.

Here, however, we think we can consider mootness before we consider jurisdiction. If a case is moot, why labor…