TDCJ’s appeal as moot, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Goudeau v. Dental Health Servs., Inc., 125 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 1997). 2 . Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Local 232, Int’l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am. (AFL-CIO), 36 F.3d 712, 713 (7th Cir. 1994). 3 . Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809-10 (4th Cir. 2013). 4 . City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). 5 . Williams, 716 F.3d at 810. 6 . Staley v. Harris Cty., Tex., 485 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 7 . Id. (quoting U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Matt P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L,Ed.2d 233 (1994)). 8 . See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) (<HOLDING>); see also Salter v. Continental Casualty Co.,
holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error recognizing that vacatur is intended to prevent unreviewable judgments from spawning any legal consequences whatsoever recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin holding not only that court had no obligation to predict consequences but also that court could not have predicted consequences holding the second element asks whether the action is one from which legal consequences will flow