Patrick Heles v. State of South Dakota Driver Improvement Prog., 682 F.2d 201 (8th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Patrick Heles v. State of South Dakota Driver Improvement Prog., 682 F.2d 201 (8th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., The, No. 0:22-cv-01666 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 202 Dismissing moot cases and applying capable of repetition exception8 citing casesremanding appeal to district court with directions to dismiss complaint as moot based on plaintiffs death and holding that “capable of repetition, but evading review” exception to rule of mootness was unavailing because the issue before the court, “though it will recur in someone’s case, will not a…1 citing court put it this way · 7 listed here
  • Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., The, No. 0:22-cv-01666 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2023).
    Heles v. South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir. 1982).
  • Elder v. Putnam, No. 3:19-cv-00155 (E.D. Ark. May 29, 2020).
    Heles v. South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir. 1982).
  • Pinke v. Kuntz, No. 1:18-cv-00024 (D.N.D. May 4, 2020).
    Heles v. South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir. 1982).
  • McFarlin v. Newport Special Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir. 1992).published 2 cites
    Heles v. South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir.1982).
  • Bernice A. Allen v. Agnes Mansour, 928 F.2d 404 (6th Cir. 1991).unpublished
    Kennerly v. United States, 721 F.2d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir.1983); Heles v. South Dakota, 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir.1982); Scott v. University of Delaware, 601 F.2d 76, 81 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931 (1979).
  • State v. Bristor, 682 P.2d 122 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).published 2 cites
    The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court judgment and directed dismissal of the complaint as moot. 682 F.2d 201, 202 (8th Cir.1982).
  • Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 365 (Vet. App. 1995).published
    (remanding appeal to district court with directions to dismiss complaint as moot based on plaintiffs death and holding that “capable of repetition, but evading review” exception to rule of mootness was unavailing because…)
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patrick HELES, Appellee,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; Driver Improvement Program, South Dakota Department of Public Safety, Appellants
82-1225.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 7, 1982.
Published opinion
682 F.2d 201
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17663
Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S. D., for appellants., John P. Blackburn, Atty. at Law, Yankton, S. D., for appellee., J. Scott Brown, Kansas City, Mo., David Crump, The Legal Foundation of America, Houston, Tex. (Murry B. Cohen, Houston, Tex., of counsel), amicus curiae for The Legal Foundation of America.
Arnold, Heaney, Regan.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Patrick J. Heles brought this suit for a declaratory judgment that South Dakota[*202] law respecting revocation of drivers’ licenses violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by prohibiting him from calling a lawyer for advice before being compelled, on pain of losing his license for one year, to submit to a blood-alcohol test. The District Court, 530 F.Supp. 646 (D.S.D. 1982), agreed with plaintiff, and the State appeals. We are now informed that the plaintiff is dead, and we therefore must dismiss this case as moot.

This is not a class action, nor was there a prayer for damages. The controversy is wholly personal to plaintiff and cannot survive him. Both parties urge us to decide the case nevertheless, on the ground that the issue of law is important and will doubtless recur. We sit, however, only to decide live cases and controversies, not to answer legal questions, no matter how interesting and important they may be as a general matter. The “capable of repetition, but evading review” exception to the rule of mootness is unavailing here, because this question, though it will recur in someone’s case, will not again arise with respect to Heles. See Murphy v. Hunt, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982). The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and this cause is remanded to it with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

It is so ordered.