In U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Company v. Bonner Mall Partnership, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a case could be dismissed as moot after an agreement had been reached outside of court that resolved the dispute between parties. The case involved a bankruptcy proceeding where Bonner Mall Partnership filed for Chapter 11 protection and U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Company appealed this decision due to their financial stake in it. However, before the appeal could be heard by higher courts, both parties agreed on a settlement which effectively ended their dispute but left unresolved legal questions about how such cases should be handled in future instances. The Supreme Court ruled that federal appellate courts have no authority to dismiss an appeal as moot simply because resolution has occurred through means other than judicial determination (like out-of-court settlements). They held that "mootness" is not just about resolving disputes between parties but also involves answering important legal questions for public interest and providing guidance for lower courts' future rulings.

In the dissenting opinion for U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Company v. Bonner Mall Partnership, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss this case as moot due to a settlement reached by both parties outside of court. He argued that such dismissal was not necessary and instead, it would have been more appropriate for the Court to decide on whether or not it had jurisdiction over this matter in light of said settlement agreement. According to him, dismissing cases because they are settled out-of-court could potentially lead to an abuse of judicial process where litigants might strategically settle their disputes just before Supreme Court adjudication simply so as to avoid unfavorable rulings from being established as precedents.