public interest exception in Vermont

2019See State v. Gotavaskas, 2015 VT 133, ¶¶ 18, 26 , 200 Vt. 597 , 134 A.3d 536 (refusing to adopt the public-interest exception in order to hear case regarding sealed competency report despite recognition that, “[f]or the judicial system to function properly, it is essential that the basis for court rulings not be cloaked, because this prevents the public from knowing how and why decisions have been reached”). ¶ 11.

2019See State v. Gotavaskas, 2015 VT 133, ¶¶ 18, 26 , 200 Vt. 597 , 134 A.3d 536 (refusing to adopt the public-interest exception in order to hear case regarding sealed competency report despite recognition that, “[f]or the judicial system to function properly, it is essential that the basis for court rulings not be cloaked, because this prevents the public from knowing how and why decisions have been reached”). ¶ 11.

2019See, e.g., 3 V.S.A. § 807 (authorizing declaratory judgment action “if it is alleged that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff”); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 401-02 (1975) (holding in class action that mootness as to individual class representative does not moot litigation if controversy may still exist between defendant and member of the class represented by named plaintiff). 5 imagine a state action that is not of substantial public significance and would not, therefore,

2019Thus, it is well established that our “historic reluctance” to adopt a public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine is grounded in an understanding that “issuing an advisory opinion, even based on public-interest considerations” would exceed the constitutional mandate that this Court determine only “actual controversies.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 9 (quotation omitted); see also In re Constitutionality of House Bill 88, 115 Vt. 524 , 64 A.2d 169 (1949) (holding that power to render advisory opinions “is in no wise incidental to the constitutional function of the judiciary of this State and no act of the

2019Thus, it is well established that our “historic reluctance” to adopt a public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine is grounded in an understanding that “issuing an advisory opinion, even based on public-interest considerations” would exceed the constitutional mandate that this Court determine only “actual controversies.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 9 (quotation omitted); see also In re Constitutionality of House Bill 88, 115 Vt. 524 , 64 A.2d 169 (1949) (holding that power to render advisory opinions “is in no wise incidental to the constitutional function of the judiciary of this State and no act of the

2019In jurisdictions where this exception is recognized, courts require only that the issues presented “be substantial, pressing, and likely to recur to qualify for the exception.” In re S.N., 2007 VT 47, ¶ 9 , 181 Vt. 641 , 928 A.2d 510 (mem.) (collecting cases).

2019Further, we have recognized that such an exception “would almost certainly swallow the rule.” In re S.N., 2007 VT 47, ¶ 9 (“We can hardly 2 We do not accept the premise that if we do not adopt a public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine, a challenge to the DOC rules implementing 28 V.S.A. § 808c(c) cannot be fully litigated by an incarcerated offender with standing before the offender reaches the minimum release date.

2010Compare discussion in In re Reclassification of Ranch Brook, 146 Vt. 602 (1986), of the difference between the statutory standard that the existing classification is contrary to the public interest and the standard erroneously applied by the Water Resources Board that the requested reclassification is in the public interest.

2010Id. at 605–06. 29 These neighborhood densities are not found in the 2003 Regulations or the Plan; however, they may be described in the consultant study or other planning studies referenced on page 40 of the Comprehensive Plan. 29 will be for the merits of this case to determine the appropriate densities and layouts of development for the Heatherfields/Lot 108 development area.

2007See In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523 , 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam) (declining to adopt the public-interest exception); In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 164 , 588 A.2d 1063, 1065 (1991) (same). ¶ 10.

2007See, e.g., Hendrick-Koroll v. Bagley, 816 N.E.2d 849, 851 (Ill.

2007See In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523 , 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam) (declining to adopt the public-interest exception); In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 164 , 588 A.2d 1063, 1065 (1991) (same). ¶ 10.

2007See In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523 , 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam) (declining to adopt the public-interest exception); In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 164 , 588 A.2d 1063, 1065 (1991) (same). ¶ 10.

2007See In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523 , 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam) (declining to adopt the public-interest exception); In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 164 , 588 A.2d 1063, 1065 (1991) (same). ¶ 10.

1984See, e.g., Proctor v. Butler, 117 N.H. 927, 930 , 380 A.2d 673, 675 (1977).

1984See, e.g., Proctor v. Butler, 117 N.H. 927, 930 , 380 A.2d 673, 675 (1977).

1974See In re Hemco, 129 Vt. 534, 537 , 283 A.2d 246 (1971).

1974See In re Hemco, 129 Vt. 534, 537 , 283 A.2d 246 (1971).