In Re Marriage of Peters-Farrell (2005)

An appeal is moot if “no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters- Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

An appeal is moot if “no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

An appeal is moot if “no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

See In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 , 835 N.E.2d 797, 799 (2005) (“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.”).

“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“An appeal is moot if ‘no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.’ ” In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922 , ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)). ¶4 As this court has explained, “when an appeal is rendered moot and we do not reach the merits of the appeal, we cannot speak to the correctness of the judgments rendered by th…

And, as we explain below, the court correctly determined that the case was moot. ¶ 19 As to the issue of mootness, Roddy specifically argues that her counterclaim seeking injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees is not moot because the circuit court’s grant of the sale-in-error motion “did not prevent future tax sales” where the motion “did not claim that the taxes had been paid or that [Roddy] was no longer under threat of enforcement of the challenged provisions of th…

And, as we explain below, the court correctly determined that the case was moot. ¶ 20 As to the issue of mootness, Roddy specifically argues that her counterclaim seeking injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees, is not moot because the circuit court’s grant of the sale-in-error motion “did not prevent future tax sales” where the motion “did not claim that the taxes had been paid or that [Roddy] was no longer under threat of enforcement of the challenged provisions of…

Pilman disagrees and argues that mootness cannot be argued for the first time on appeal, and even if it could, the issue is not moot. ¶ 24 An appeal is moot if “no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters–Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“An appeal is moot -9- No. 1-22-1467 if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“The exception is narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005).

App. 3d 537, 539 (2005); In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“An appeal is moot if ‘*** events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.’ ” In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

Defendant’s counsel disagrees that the appeal is moot. ¶ 155 “An appeal is moot if no controversy exists or if events have occurred which foreclose the reviewing court from granting effectual relief to the complaining party.” In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 15 (citing In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

Finally, the State argues that the trial court’s involuntary medication order is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 18 “An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

The defendants fail to show that this is so, however. ¶ 31 “An appeal is moot if ‘no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.’ ” In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

“The existence of a real dispute is not a mere technicality but, rather, is a prerequisite to the exercise of this court’s jurisdiction.” In re Marriage of Peters- Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005). ¶ 25 In the case at bar, Thomas’s challenge concerning the trial court’s extensions of the emergency order of protection is moot because the emergency order of protection is no longer in effect, and therefore, even an appellate court order reversing the January 7, 2019, emerge…

Any doubts regarding the incompleteness of the record are, as always, “resolved against the appellant.” Id. ¶ 94 “An appeal is moot if no controversy exists or if events have occurred which foreclose the reviewing court from granting effectual relief to the complaining party.” In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 15 (citing In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

Any doubts regarding the incompleteness of the record are, as always, “resolved against the appellant.” Id. ¶ 95 “An appeal is moot if no controversy exists or if events have occurred which foreclose the reviewing court from granting effectual relief to the complaining party.” In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 15 (citing In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 , 835 N.E.2d 797, 799 (2005).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

For the public interest exception to apply, there must be “ ‘a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 356 (2009) (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005)). ¶ 27 Here, we find that the public interest exception applies.

For the public interest exception to apply, there must be “ ‘a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 356 (2009) (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005)). ¶ 27 Here, we find that the public interest exception applies.

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

We conclude that IDOT’s cross-appeal has been rendered moot by our resolution of appeal No. 1-17-1393. ¶ 73 “An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“An appeal is moot if ‘no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.’ ” In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters–Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

The defendants counter that the Board’s decision to treat Hauber’s two applications as moot was supported by section 4-110.1, which does not provide for benefits to a deceased firefighter, and they argue strenuously that, even if such benefits had been granted, Hauber’s widow would have been entitled to the higher, duty-level pension benefits based on section 4-114(i), which applies “notwithstanding *** any other provision of this Article.” 40 ILCS 5/4-114(i) (West 2018). ¶ …

In our de novo review (see Benz v. Department of Children & Family Services, 2015 IL App (1st) 130414, ¶ 31 ), we conclude that, despite his release from custody, defendant still has a personal stake in the outcome of this postconviction proceeding, a stake sufficient to prevent his case from being moot (see In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

VI, § 9; see Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 335 (2002) (defining “a ‘justiciable matter’ ” as “a controversy appropriate for review by the court, in that it is definite and concrete, as opposed to hypothetical or moot, touching upon the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests” (emphasis added)); In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005) (“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists ***…

Co., 28 Ill. 2d 275, 279 (1963); Wilkey v. Illinois Racing Board, 96 Ill. 2d 245, 251 (1983)); (2) the issues have become moot (In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)); and (3) the petition for leave to appeal was not timely filed (Roth v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 202 Ill. 2d 490, 497 (2002)).

VI, § 9; see Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 335 (2002) (defining “a ‘justiciable matter’ ” as “a controversy appropriate for review by the court, in that it is definite and concrete, as opposed to - 20 - hypothetical or moot, touching upon the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests” (emphasis added)); In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005) (“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exi…

Co., 28 Ill. 2d 275, 279 (1963); Wilkey v. Illinois Racing Board, 96 Ill. 2d 245, 251 (1983)); (2) the issues have become moot (In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)); and (3) the petition for leave to appeal was not timely filed (Roth v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 202 Ill. 2d 490, 497 (2002)).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

“The exception is narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005). ¶ 24 First, we find that the questions presented by Lakewood in its complaint for administrative review are of a public nature. “[T]he public nature criterion is only satisfied when it has been clearly established that the issue is of ‘sufficient breadth, or has a significant effect on the public as a whole.’ ” In re Marriage of…

S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1). ¶ 29 “An appeal is moot if ‘no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.’ ” In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1). ¶ 29 "An appeal is moot if 'no actual controversy exists or if events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.' " In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 9 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005)).

The public interest exception is “ ‘narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” Id. at 355-56 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005)). ¶ 14 This case presents a question of a public nature. “[T]he procedures which must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a court may authorize involuntary treatment to recipients of mental health services are matters of a public nature and of substantial public concern.”…

The public interest exception is “ ‘narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” Id. at 355-56 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005)). ¶ 14 This case presents a question of a public nature. “[T]he procedures which must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a court may authorize involuntary -5- treatment to recipients of mental health services are matters of a public nature and of substantial public conce…

The public interest exception is “ ‘narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” Id. at 355-56 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005)). ¶ 14 This case presents a question of a public nature. “[T]he procedures which must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a court may authorize involuntary -5- treatment to recipients of mental health services are matters of a public nature and of substantial public conce…

The “public interest” exception is “narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005) (citing In re India B., 202 Ill. 2d 522, 543 (2002), and In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999)). ¶ 34 The Attorney General argues that the case before us does not meet the rigid standards of the public interest exception necessary for our application of this exception to the mootness doctrine.

The “public interest” exception is “narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005) (citing In re India B., 202 Ill. 2d 522, 543 (2002), and In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999)). ¶ 34 The Attorney General argues that the case before us does not meet the rigid standards of the public interest exception necessary for our application of this exception to the mootness doctrine.

“The ‘public interest’ exception is ‘narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” Id. at 355-56 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2003)).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005) (citing People v. Roberson, 212 Ill. 2d 430, 435 (2004)).

“The ‘public interest’ exception is ‘narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.’ ” Id. at 355-56 (quoting In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2003).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005) (citing People v. Roberson, 212 Ill. 2d 430, 435 (2004)).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).

In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 291 (2005).