The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (St. Louis County orders; Eighth Circuit) · Missouri
- Level
- Court
- Authority
- 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Article III (standing and mootness)
- Issued
- 2021-07-30 July 30, 2021
- Effective
- 2021-07-30
- End
- n/a (read as 2021-09-30)
- In force
- July 30, 2021 to Sept. 30, 2021
- Quarters
- 2021 Q3
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Stay-at-homeCapacity limitGathering capFace-covering requirementStanding duty
- Addressees
- persons generally; specified businesses (retail facilities, personal service facilities, restaurants, fitness centers) in St. Louis County
- Character
- adjudication
- Collection
- Standing duties: Missouri DUT-MO
Operative words
Emily Doucette, St. Louis Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Health, 2019 Novel Coronavirus ('COVID-19') Third Amended Safer At Home Order (Feb. 9, 2021)... Faisal Khan, St. Louis Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Health, 2019 Novel Coronavirus ('COVID-19') Reopen STL Order (May 3, 2021)... Faisal Khan, St. Louis Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Health, 2019 Novel Coronavirus ('COVID-19') Face Covering Order (July 26, 2021)
Penalty
What it required
Decided in the third quarter of 2021, the opinion records, as the basis for holding the challenge to the County's April 20, 2020 order moot, the unbroken sequence of St. Louis County Department of Public Health orders through the Third Amended Safer At Home Order of February 9, 2021, the Reopen STL Order of May 3, 2021, its rescission of May 14, 2021 and the Face Covering Order of July 26, 2021, and notes that the County 'abandoned any gathering-limit distinction between religious entities and secular businesses like retail facilities, personal service facilities, restaurants, and fitness centers' while continuing to regulate all of them. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).
Retrieval noteThe Eighth Circuit's published opinion from the court's own server (137,443 bytes). The appeal was from the dismissal of a religious-gathering challenge to the County's Stay at Home Order of April 20, 2020; the court held the plaintiffs lacked standing for the relief pleaded and that the controversy was moot.