mootness doctrine in Oklahoma

1998We note the dissenting opinion's citations to Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okl.1980) do not involve a mootness exception for reasons of public interest. [4] This section was amended after Pearce's resignation to allow a position such as the one she held to be registered as unclassified.

1998We note the dissenting opinion’s citations to Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okl.1980) do not involve a mootness exception for reasons of public interest. .

2025This Court has long held that it will not decide "abstract or hypothetical questions disconnected from the granting of actual relief or make determinations where no practical relief may be granted." Rogers v. Excise Bd. Of Greer Cty. , 1984 OK 95 701 P.2d 754 See also, e.g. , Westinghouse Elec.

2025This Court has long held that it will not decide "abstract or hypothetical questions disconnected from the granting of actual relief or make determinations where no practical relief may be granted." Rogers v. Excise Bd. Of Greer Cty. , 1984 OK 95 701 P.2d 754 See also, e.g. , Westinghouse Elec.

2016Pearce v. Oklahoma, 1998 OK 106, ¶5 , 970 P.2d 175 ; Payne v. Jones, 1944 OK 86, ¶¶4-5 , 193 Okla. 609 , 146 P.2d 113 .” Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Ctr., Inc., 2009 OK 13 , ¶4 n.4, 204 P.3d 75 (public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied to uncertainty by the bench and bar concerning recent employment discrimination holdings).

2016Pearce v. Oklahoma, 1998 OK 106, ¶5 , 970 P.2d 175 ; Payne v. Jones, 1944 OK 86, ¶¶4-5 , 193 Okla. 609 , 146 P.2d 113 .” Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Ctr., Inc., 2009 OK 13 , ¶4 n.4, 204 P.3d 75 (public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied to uncertainty by the bench and bar concerning recent employment discrimination holdings).

1995State of Oklahoma, 585 F.2d 432 (10th Cir.1978).

1984State of Oklahoma, 585 F.2d 432 (10th Cir.1978); 9 .

2026Gjertsen also explained that the "Supreme Court held that since the requirement of vacating the lower-court order when it becomes moot on appeal is for the benefit of the loser in the lower court, he can waive it, and does so by failing to invoke it." Gjertsen , 751 F.2d at 203 (citing United States v. Munsingwear , 340 U.S. at 40-41 ). ¶25 We are not required to follow holdings in these federal opinions; 12 O.S. §952 12 O.S. §952 ¶26 A potential for future litigation authorizing vacation of a judgment upon dismissal of an appeal is not identical with the mootness exception based upon a potent

2026Gjertsen also explained that the "Supreme Court held that since the requirement of vacating the lower-court order when it becomes moot on appeal is for the benefit of the loser in the lower court, he can waive it, and does so by failing to invoke it." Gjertsen , 751 F.2d at 203 (citing United States v. Munsingwear , 340 U.S. at 40-41 ). ¶25 We are not required to follow holdings in these federal opinions; 12 O.S. §952 12 O.S. §952 ¶26 A potential for future litigation authorizing vacation of a judgment upon dismissal of an appeal is not identical with the mootness exception based upon a potent

2022Comm'n , 1950 OK 274 224 P.2d 268 Oklahoma recognizes two distinct exceptions to the mootness doctrine: 1) when an appeal presents a question of broad public interest, and 2) when the challenged event is capable of repetition, yet evading review.

2022Comm'n , 1950 OK 274 224 P.2d 268 Oklahoma recognizes two distinct exceptions to the mootness doctrine: 1) when an appeal presents a question of broad public interest, and 2) when the challenged event is capable of repetition, yet evading review.

2009She responded, arguing that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable, 4 and she provided documentation alleging that the bench and bar remained uncertain about our recent holdings in Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59 , 145 P.3d 1087 , and Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105 , 202 P.3d 144 . 5 We agree that the public interest exception to mootness applies.

2009She responded, arguing that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable, 4 and she provided documentation alleging that the bench and bar remained uncertain about our recent holdings in Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59 , 145 P.3d 1087 , and Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105 , 202 P.3d 144 . 5 We agree that the public interest exception to mootness applies.

2009She responded, arguing that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable, 4 and she provided documentation alleging that the bench and bar remained uncertain about our recent holdings in Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc., 2006 OK 59 , 145 P.3d 1087 , and Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105 , 202 P.3d 144 . 5 We agree that the public interest exception to mootness applies.

2006Westinghouse, 1986 OK 20 , ¶ 21, 720 P.2d at 720 .

2004Dept. of Human Services v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, n. 4 , 950 P.2d 824, 826 , (exception to the mootness doctrine applied in an original jurisdiction proceeding). [6] Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 (assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). [7] The Fund challenges the trial court's writ based upon the fact that no premium was tendered by Chandler.

2004Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 {assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). .

2004Dept. of Human Services v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, n. 4 , 950 P.2d 824, 826 , (exception to the mootness doctrine applied in an original jurisdiction proceeding). [6] Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 (assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). [7] The Fund challenges the trial court's writ based upon the fact that no premium was tendered by Chandler.

2004Dept. of Human Services v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, n. 4 , 950 P.2d 824, 826 , (exception to the mootness doctrine applied in an original jurisdiction proceeding). [6] Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 (assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). [7] The Fund challenges the trial court's writ based upon the fact that no premium was tendered by Chandler.

2004Dept. of Human Services v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, n. 4 , 950 P.2d 824, 826 , (exception to the mootness doctrine applied in an original jurisdiction proceeding). [6] Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 (assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). [7] The Fund challenges the trial court's writ based upon the fact that no premium was tendered by Chandler.

2004Morrow Development Corporation v. American Bank and Trust Co., 1991 OK 31 , 816 P.2d 537 {assuming jurisdiction not required for issuance of writ ancillary to appeal when appellate jurisdiction exists). .

1998Payne v. Jones, 193 Okla. 609 , 146 P.2d 113, 116 (1944); Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp., 1995 OK 112 , 909 P.2d 765 , 768 n. 10; Northeast Oklahoma Elec.

1998Payne v. Jones, 193 Okla. 609 , 146 P.2d 113, 116 (1944); Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp., 1995 OK 112 , 909 P.2d 765 , 768 n. 10; Northeast Oklahoma Elec.

1998We note the dissenting opinion's citations to Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okl.1980) do not involve a mootness exception for reasons of public interest. [4] This section was amended after Pearce's resignation to allow a position such as the one she held to be registered as unclassified.

1998We note the dissenting opinion's citations to Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okl.1980) do not involve a mootness exception for reasons of public interest. [4] This section was amended after Pearce's resignation to allow a position such as the one she held to be registered as unclassified.

1997Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (Okla.1991); B.J.B. v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 611 P.2d 249 (Okla.1980); and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okla.1980).

1997Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (Okla.1991); B.J.B. v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 611 P.2d 249 (Okla.1980); and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okla.1980).

1997Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (Okla.1991); B.J.B. v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 611 P.2d 249 (Okla.1980); and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okla.1980).

1997Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (Okla.1991); B.J.B. v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 611 P.2d 249 (Okla.1980); and In re Mental Health of D.B.W., 616 P.2d 1149 (Okla.1980).

1994The appellants argue that voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not make a case moot, County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979), and that the facts fall into the well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine as being “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Story, 756 P.2d 588 (Okla.1988).