exists because SWEPCO’s permit is the subject of an administrative and legal challenge testing whether SWEPCO has proposed to construct and is constructing the Hempstead Plant without a valid permit. Second, HCHC argues that, in interlocutory appeals regarding requests for preliminary injunctive relief, well-established doctrine encourages appellate courts to resolve the underlying merits of a case if legal and factual issues were sufficiently “illuminated” in the proceedings before a district court and if doing so serves judicial economy. HCHC maintains that the relevant legal and factual issues were sufficiently and exhaustively “illuminated” and presented in the district court and that the parties will incur undue expense and burden if this matter is re 8, 270 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). “A claim for injunctive relief may become
holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that question of whether former employer was entitled to preliminary injunction ordering former employees to comply with noncompetition provisions of employment agreements was moot since the noncompetition restriction expired by time of appeal holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot