mootness doctrine in South Carolina

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2024See generally Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426 , 431-32, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (explaining the Court recognizes an exception to the mootness doctrine when a matter is capable of repetition yet evades review).

2024See generally Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426 , 431-32, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (explaining the Court recognizes an exception to the mootness doctrine when a matter is capable of repetition yet evades review).

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2023See Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); id. at 26 , 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."); Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C.

2023See Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); id. at 26 , 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."); Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C.

2010State Highway Dep't , 260 S.C. 344, 346 , 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy."); Collins Music Co. v. IGT , 365 S.C. 544, 549 , 619 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2005) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when the trial court's decision has collateral consequences to the parties).

2010State Highway Dep't , 260 S.C. 344, 346 , 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy."); Collins Music Co. v. IGT , 365 S.C. 544, 549 , 619 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2005) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when the trial court's decision has collateral consequences to the parties).

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2012Cf. Turner v. Rogers, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2507 , 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011) (holding civil contempt case was not moot where the dispute was capable of repetition, yet evading review; Turner had been imprisoned on several occasions for civil contempt for failure to pay child support and would likely suffer future imprisonment); State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568 , 611 S.E.2d 273 (Ct.App.2005) (finding Passmore’s appeal after serving her sentence for criminal contempt was not moot based on exceptions to the mootness doctrine; the issue was capable of repetition, but evading review, and Passmore could c

2012Cf. Turner v. Rogers, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2507 , 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011) (holding civil contempt case was not moot where the dispute was capable of repetition, yet evading review; Turner had been imprisoned on several occasions for civil contempt for failure to pay child support and would likely suffer future imprisonment); State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568 , 611 S.E.2d 273 (Ct.App.2005) (finding Passmore’s appeal after serving her sentence for criminal contempt was not moot based on exceptions to the mootness doctrine; the issue was capable of repetition, but evading review, and Passmore could c

2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S.

2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S.

2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S.

2009The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprudence, not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked. 1 Compare, e.g., Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 553-55 , 590 S.E.2d 338, 350-51 , with Sloan, 361 S.C. at 571-72 , 606 S.E.2d at 468 ; cf. 1A C.J.S.

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2026See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76 , 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212 , 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously

2026See State v. Grissett, 442 S.C. 183 , 188, 898 S.E.2d 139 , 142 (2024) (declining to "strictly apply the mootness doctrine" to an issue involving a CSP when that issue was "capable of repetition yet evading review").

2026See State v. Grissett, 442 S.C. 183 , 188, 898 S.E.2d 139 , 142 (2024) (declining to "strictly apply the mootness doctrine" to an issue involving a CSP when that issue was "capable of repetition yet evading review").

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2023See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27 , 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07 , 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and develo

2023Corp., 307 S.C. 143, 148 , 414 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1992) ("[An appellate] court will not issue advisory opinions and cannot alter precedent based on questions presented in the abstract.").

2023Corp., 307 S.C. 143, 148 , 414 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1992) ("[An appellate] court will not issue advisory opinions and cannot alter precedent based on questions presented in the abstract.").

2023See Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); id. at 26 , 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."); Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C.

2023See Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("A justiciable controversy exists when there is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a dispute that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract."); id. at 26 , 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."); Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C.

2022See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (holding an issue "must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review"); Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351, 376 , 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue is not preserved where the [circuit] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."). 2.

2022See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (holding an issue "must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review"); Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351, 376 , 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue is not preserved where the [circuit] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."). 2.

2021Dist. of Colleton Cty., 371 S.C. 224, 242 , 638 S.E.2d 685, 694 (2006))); Rule 201(b), SCACR ("Only a party aggrieved by an order, judgment, or sentence may appeal."); cf. Kurshner v. City of 1 We decline to apply an exception to the mootness doctrine.

2021Dist. of Colleton Cty., 371 S.C. 224, 242 , 638 S.E.2d 685, 694 (2006))); Rule 201(b), SCACR ("Only a party aggrieved by an order, judgment, or sentence may appeal."); cf. Kurshner v. City of 1 We decline to apply an exception to the mootness doctrine.

2021Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 175 , 656 S.E.2d 346, 352 (2008) (declining to consider whether a planning commission's denial of an application to subdivide property "constituted a taking without just compensation" because such issues "would not be ripe for judicial review at this stage, and those issues should be litigated in a separate action").

2021Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 175 , 656 S.E.2d 346, 352 (2008) (declining to consider whether a planning commission's denial of an application to subdivide property "constituted a taking without just compensation" because such issues "would not be ripe for judicial review at this stage, and those issues should be litigated in a separate action").

2019As to the question of mootness: State v. Green, 337 S.C. 67, 71 , 522 S.E.2d 602, 604 (Ct. App. 1999) ("A criminal case is moot only if there is no possibility that any legal consequences will be imposed." (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) (noting there are three general exceptions to the mootness doctrine: "First, an appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review.

2019As to the question of mootness: State v. Green, 337 S.C. 67, 71 , 522 S.E.2d 602, 604 (Ct. App. 1999) ("A criminal case is moot only if there is no possibility that any legal consequences will be imposed." (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) (noting there are three general exceptions to the mootness doctrine: "First, an appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review.

2019As to the question of mootness: State v. Green, 337 S.C. 67, 71 , 522 S.E.2d 602, 604 (Ct. App. 1999) ("A criminal case is moot only if there is no possibility that any legal consequences will be imposed." (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968))); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) (noting there are three general exceptions to the mootness doctrine: "First, an appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review.

2018See Sloan v. Dep't of Transp., 379 S.C. 160, 167 , 666 S.E.2d 236, 240 (2008) (noting our courts generally do not review "moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy"); id. at 168 , 666 S.E.2d at 240 (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when "the issue raised is capable of repetition but generally will evade review"); Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprud

2018See Sloan v. Dep't of Transp., 379 S.C. 160, 167 , 666 S.E.2d 236, 240 (2008) (noting our courts generally do not review "moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy"); id. at 168 , 666 S.E.2d at 240 (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when "the issue raised is capable of repetition but generally will evade review"); Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The utilization of an exception under the mootness doctrine is flexible and discretionary pursuant to South Carolina jurisprud

2017See In re Catrice S., 322 S.C. 204, 207 , 470 S.E.2d 856, 858 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding the issue of a juvenile's sentence to DJJ for a status offense was not capable of repetition because the statute had been amended to allow the family court to sentence status offenders to DJJ); see also Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 27 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2006) (providing an issue must truly evade review to fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues capable of repetition, yet evading review). 2.

2017See In re Catrice S., 322 S.C. 204, 207 , 470 S.E.2d 856, 858 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding the issue of a juvenile's sentence to DJJ for a status offense was not capable of repetition because the statute had been amended to allow the family court to sentence status offenders to DJJ); see also Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 27 , 630 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2006) (providing an issue must truly evade review to fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues capable of repetition, yet evading review). 2.

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2014Funding v. State, 311 Or. 300 , 811 P.2d 116, 117-18 (1991) (en banc) (holding the validity of a particular funding scheme was not the issue, but instead whether unequal funding deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected right); Cox v. State, 191 Or.App. 1 , 80 P.3d 514, 515 (2003) (finding that the statute in effect during the trial of the case had been superseded by statute, and relying on Coalition for Equitable School Funding, 811 P.2d at 117-18 , to reject the mootness claim); Brigham v. State, 179 Vt. 525 , 889 A.2d 715, 722 (2005) ("As plaintiffs correctly point out, a chan

2010State Highway Dep't , 260 S.C. 344, 346 , 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy."); Collins Music Co. v. IGT , 365 S.C. 544, 549 , 619 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2005) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when the trial court's decision has collateral consequences to the parties).

2010State Highway Dep't , 260 S.C. 344, 346 , 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy."); Collins Music Co. v. IGT , 365 S.C. 544, 549 , 619 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2005) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine exists when the trial court's decision has collateral consequences to the parties).