1. Is a district court's exercise of Article III judicial power over a non-controversy a rare instance of jurisdictional error that renders its judgment void?

2. If so, is the judgment so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity can be raised even after the judgment became final?

3. In lieu of plenary review by this Court, is a GVR Order, without determining the merits, appropriate for the following reasons:
• There is a reasonable probability that a GVR Order in light of the Hartkes' judicial admissions will result in voiding the judgment?
• The Hartke admissions are "confessions of error" that, because Roger had no concrete interest in the dispute, no case or controversy existed?
• A GVR Order would promote fairness to Roger without using much of this Court's limited docket?
• There is reason to believe the Eighth Circuit did not fully consider the legal significance of the Hartkes' judicial admissions?

Is a district court's exercise of Article III judicial power over a non-controversy a rare instance of jurisdictional error that renders its judgment void?