mootness doctrine in Nevada

2025See Personhood Nev, v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (discussing the mootness doctrine and explaining that an issue may be rendered moot by later events). 4Given our conclusion that Molly did not demonstrate any grounds of parental fault, we need not consider the parties’ arguments as to whether terminating Bryan’s parental rights would be in S.A.T.’s best interest.

2025See Personhood Nev, v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (discussing the mootness doctrine and explaining that an issue may be rendered moot by later events). 4Given our conclusion that Molly did not demonstrate any grounds of parental fault, we need not consider the parties’ arguments as to whether terminating Bryan’s parental rights would be in S.A.T.’s best interest.

2018Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548-49 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) SUPREME COURT OF 12'- 40900 NEVADA (0) 1947A re (recognizing that an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases which are capable of repetition, yet evading review)} Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

2010Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72 , 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is “relatively short” and there is a “likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future” (citing Binegar v. District Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) (noting that the matter must be important), and Langston, 110 Nev. at 344 , 871 P.2d at 363 (pointing out that facts unique to a particular party will not give rise to the mootness exc

2022Police Dep't, 129 Nev. 328, 334-35, 302 P.3d 1108, 1113 (2013). "[T]he second factor of the mootness exception requires that the question presented is likely to arise in the future with respect to the complaining party or individuals who are similarly situated to the complainant." Valdez- Jimenez, 136 Nev. at 160, 460 P.3d at 983.

2022Police Dep't, 129 Nev. 328, 334-35, 302 P.3d 1108, 1113 (2013). "[T]he second factor of the mootness exception requires that the question presented is likely to arise in the future with respect to the complaining party or individuals who are similarly situated to the complainant." Valdez- Jimenez, 136 Nev. at 160, 460 P.3d at 983.

2018Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548-49 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) SUPREME COURT OF 12'- 40900 NEVADA (0) 1947A re (recognizing that an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases which are capable of repetition, yet evading review)} Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

2010Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72 , 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is “relatively short” and there is a “likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future” (citing Binegar v. District Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) (noting that the matter must be important), and Langston, 110 Nev. at 344 , 871 P.2d at 363 (pointing out that facts unique to a particular party will not give rise to the mootness exc

2017"Even when an appeal is moot, however, [this court] may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id.; see also Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is "relatively short term" and there is a "likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future").

2017"Even when an appeal is moot, however, [this court] may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id.; see also Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is "relatively short term" and there is a "likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future").

2010Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72 , 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is “relatively short” and there is a “likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future” (citing Binegar v. District Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) (noting that the matter must be important), and Langston, 110 Nev. at 344 , 871 P.2d at 363 (pointing out that facts unique to a particular party will not give rise to the mootness exc

2010Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72 , 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is “relatively short” and there is a “likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future” (citing Binegar v. District Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) (noting that the matter must be important), and Langston, 110 Nev. at 344 , 871 P.2d at 363 (pointing out that facts unique to a particular party will not give rise to the mootness exc

2020We conclude that petitioners have satisfied this was "'capable of repetition in countless detention hearings yet may evade review if other defendants plead guilty before similar challenges can be resolved"); Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771, 775 (Wyo. 2015) (addressing challenge to bail where defendant had already been convicted because the issue was capable of repetition with respect to other defendants).

2020We conclude that petitioners have satisfied this was "'capable of repetition in countless detention hearings yet may evade review if other defendants plead guilty before similar challenges can be resolved"); Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771, 775 (Wyo. 2015) (addressing challenge to bail where defendant had already been convicted because the issue was capable of repetition with respect to other defendants).

2020United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, U.S. „ 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1540 (2018) (emphasis added).

2020United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, U.S. „ 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1540 (2018) (emphasis added).

2020First, given the time restraints inherent in criminal cases, most bail orders are short in duration and the issues concerning bail SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A cgigr. and pretrial detention become moot once the case is resolved by dismissal, guilty plea, or trial.2 See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 110 n.11 (1975) ("Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted.").

2020First, given the time restraints inherent in criminal cases, most bail orders are short in duration and the issues concerning bail SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A cgigr. and pretrial detention become moot once the case is resolved by dismissal, guilty plea, or trial.2 See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 110 n.11 (1975) ("Pretrial detention is by nature temporary, and it is most unlikely that any given individual could have his constitutional claim decided on appeal before he is either released or convicted.").

2013This issue is not likely to arise again because it is abundantly clear that "a positive drug test result alone is not a sufficient basis to sustain a finding of direct contempt." In re J.H., 213 P.3d 545, 549 (Okla. 2008).

2013This issue is not likely to arise again because it is abundantly clear that “a positive drug test result alone is not a sufficient basis to sustain a finding of direct contempt.” In re J.H., 213 P.3d 545, 549 (Okla. 2008).

2024Ct., 125 Nev. 849, 858 , 221 P.3d 1240, 1246 (2009) (providing that a petition for extraordinary writ relief was appropriate 5 Both Falconi and real parties in interest agree that this issue is not moot even though the hearing to which Falconi sought access has already occurred because the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

2024Ct., 125 Nev. 849, 858 , 221 P.3d 1240, 1246 (2009) (providing that a petition for extraordinary writ relief was appropriate 5 Both Falconi and real parties in interest agree that this issue is not moot even though the hearing to which Falconi sought access has already occurred because the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

2022See In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161 , 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (holding that the mootness exception applies only in "exceptional circumstances," and that the issue tl must be too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration, and a reasonable expectation must exist that the same complaining party will suffer the harm again.").

2022See In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161 , 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (holding that the mootness exception applies only in "exceptional circumstances," and that the issue tl must be too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration, and a reasonable expectation must exist that the same complaining party will suffer the harm again.").

2015This court has not expressly adopted the doctrine for civil cases, but see Boulet, 96 Nev. at 613-14 , 614 P.2d at 10 ("A civil case will not be considered moot if an aggrieved party diligently and actively seeks relief from discernible and substantial consequences flowing from a lower tribunal's judgment."), and here, Holder has not alleged a discernable and substantial legal consequence sufficient to overcome the mootness doctrine.

2015This court has not expressly adopted the doctrine for civil cases, but see Boulet, 96 Nev. at 613-14 , 614 P.2d at 10 ("A civil case will not be considered moot if an aggrieved party diligently and actively seeks relief from discernible and substantial consequences flowing from a lower tribunal's judgment."), and here, Holder has not alleged a discernable and substantial legal consequence sufficient to overcome the mootness doctrine.

2015See id. at 613 , 614 P.2d at 9 (explaining that this court decides appeals only when doing so affects the legal rights of the parties); Towner v. Ridgway, 272 P.3d 765, 769 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (dismissing an appeal from a civil stalking injunction as moot after noting that alleged harm to reputation, family 2 Holder also argues that the issue is one capable of repetition, yet evading review.

2010See Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (dismissing an appeal because the question regarding a proposed initiative petition’s summary became moot when its sponsors failed to file the petition by the deadline and no exception to the mootness doctrine applied, since that court typically resolves such issues in time, the initiative might not be proposed again, and the issue was not so important as to warrant discussion despite lacking a current controversy); Asher v. Carnahan, 268 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (dismissing an appeal challenging the language of a

2008See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 498-99 (1969) (holding that a claim for damages in the form of lost salary survived a mootness challenge when the damages arose from allegedly illegal conduct and the conduct had ceased); see also Z Channel Ltd. v. Home Box Office, 931 F.2d 1338 , 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that summary judgment was not appropriate when damages were available for alleged violation of antitrust laws, despite declaratory and injunctive relief being rendered moot by a change in business practices). 17 See Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565 , 570, 2 P.3d 258, 261 (2000)

2008See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 498-99 (1969) (holding that a claim for damages in the form of lost salary survived a mootness challenge when the damages arose from allegedly illegal conduct and the conduct had ceased); see also Z Channel Ltd. v. Home Box Office, 931 F.2d 1338 , 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that summary judgment was not appropriate when damages were available for alleged violation of antitrust laws, despite declaratory and injunctive relief being rendered moot by a change in business practices). 17 See Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565 , 570, 2 P.3d 258, 261 (2000)

2008See, e.g., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 498-99 (1969) (holding that a claim for damages in the form of lost salary survived a mootness challenge when the damages arose from allegedly illegal conduct and the conduct had ceased); see also Z Channel Ltd. v. Home Box Office, 931 F.2d 1338 , 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that summary judgment was not appropriate when damages were available for alleged violation of antitrust laws, despite declaratory and injunctive relief being rendered moot by a change in business practices). 17 See Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565 , 570, 2 P.3d 258, 261 (2000)

2003The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is filed.” Cf. V-1 Oil Co. v. People, 799 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Wyo. 1990) (“The essence of posting a super-sedeas bond by an appellant following judgment entry is to avoid a mootness challenge that might otherwise arise if the judgment is paid before appeal is taken . . . .”). 9 See Younger, 777 P.2d at 791. 10 See Reitano, 237 P.2d at 7 ; Frankfather, 225 P.2d at 1040 ; Webb, 80 P.2d at 707-08 ; Winthrop, 269 P. at 796 . 11 Bd. of Gallery of History v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286 , 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000). 12 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 3

2003The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is filed.” Cf. V-1 Oil Co. v. People, 799 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Wyo. 1990) (“The essence of posting a super-sedeas bond by an appellant following judgment entry is to avoid a mootness challenge that might otherwise arise if the judgment is paid before appeal is taken . . . .”). 9 See Younger, 777 P.2d at 791. 10 See Reitano, 237 P.2d at 7 ; Frankfather, 225 P.2d at 1040 ; Webb, 80 P.2d at 707-08 ; Winthrop, 269 P. at 796 . 11 Bd. of Gallery of History v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286 , 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000). 12 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 3

2003The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is filed.” Cf. V-1 Oil Co. v. People, 799 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Wyo. 1990) (“The essence of posting a super-sedeas bond by an appellant following judgment entry is to avoid a mootness challenge that might otherwise arise if the judgment is paid before appeal is taken . . . .”). 9 See Younger, 777 P.2d at 791. 10 See Reitano, 237 P.2d at 7 ; Frankfather, 225 P.2d at 1040 ; Webb, 80 P.2d at 707-08 ; Winthrop, 269 P. at 796 . 11 Bd. of Gallery of History v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286 , 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000). 12 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 3

2003Freeman, Law of Judgments § 482 (2d ed.)). 15 Rogers v. Bill & Vince’s, Inc., 33 Cal. Rptr. 129, 131 (Ct. App. 1963). 16 See Moore & Son, Inc. v. Drewry & Associates, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 117, 121 (E.D.

2003Freeman, Law of Judgments § 482 (2d ed.)). 15 Rogers v. Bill & Vince’s, Inc., 33 Cal. Rptr. 129, 131 (Ct. App. 1963). 16 See Moore & Son, Inc. v. Drewry & Associates, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 117, 121 (E.D.