public interest exception in Illinois

2026See Commonwealth Edison, 2016 IL 118129 , ¶¶ 12-18 (discussing the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); see also Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 358-363 (discussing the capable of repetition yet avoiding review exception and collateral consequences exception).

2025The public interest exception, which Roddy invokes here, “allows a court to consider an otherwise moot case when (1) the question presented is of a public nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355 .

2026Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 181 ; Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517 (“congestion is a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the - 15 - 1-25-2211 case more quickly”); Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 555 (1992) (court congestion is the least significant of the public interest factors); Brumett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503 (1986) (“Courts should be extremely reluctant to dismiss a case from the forum rei gestae merely because that forum’s docket has a backlog.”). ¶ 36 The annual report of the Administrative Office of t

2026Contrarily, in the instant case, where no party resides in Cook County, a trial there would necessarily involve nonresident litigation and, thus, a deeper consideration of this factor than provided in Adamian. ¶ 61 Fundamentally, our supreme court has repeatedly deemed congestion of respective court dockets “a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the case more quickly.” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517; accord Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 555 (1992) (this “is the least significant of the public interest factors”); Brumme

2025And, 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 the Property Tax Code.” In the alternative, she contends that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine is app

2025And, 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 the Property Tax Code.” In the alternative, she contends that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine is

2015See In re Robert S., 213 Ill. 2d at 45-46 (applying the public interest exception to consider respondent's appeal from an order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, even though more than 90 days had passed and the circuit court's order no longer had any force or effect). ¶ 23 The "capable of repetition yet avoiding review" exception also applies here.

2015See In re Robert S., 213 Ill. 2d at 45-46 (applying the public interest exception to consider respondent's appeal from an order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication, even though more than 90 days had passed and the circuit court's order no longer had any force or effect). ¶ 23 The "capable of repetition yet avoiding review" exception also applies here.

2024The record on appeal does not reveal any particular reason to expect that the respondent would be subjected, again, to the same type of medication order. 5 ¶ 18 The Public-Interest Exception ¶ 19 “Application of the public interest exception requires (1) the existence of a question of public importance; (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers in the performance of their duties; and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.” J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 350 .

2021As such, we will address the merits of this case under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” Id. ¶ 12. ¶ 19 The second reason not to apply the mootness doctrine is that we believe we are still able “to grant effectual relief.” In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 349-50.

2025For a question to be of a sufficient public nature, the question must have “a significant effect on the public as a whole.” Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 393 (2007). ¶ 47 Although respondent argues in a conclusory fashion that we can consider this moot issue under the public-interest exception, she presents no case law on the exception and never fully develops the argument.

2024McHenry Township Road District v. Pritzker, 2021 IL App (2d) 200636 , ¶ 37. ¶ 15 The public-interest exception “permits review of an otherwise moot question where the ‘magnitude or immediacy of the interests involved warrant[s] action by the court.’ ” In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 (quoting Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 392 (2007)).

2022Contra In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 257 (1989) (deciding to review the issue under the public interest exception where it was “desirable that circuit court judges receive guidance as to the constitutionality” of the challenged statutory provision).

2015In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999). ¶ 12 Catherine does not specifically address each of these factors, but merely contends that “issues involving minors or constitutional concerns are considered important public concerns worthy of the application of the public interest exception,” relying on In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247 (1989), and In re R.V., 288 Ill.

1994(Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 391, 395 .) The test for this exception focuses on: "(1) the public nature of the question, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.” (Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d at 395 .) A clear showing of all three of these factors is required to bring a case within the public interest exception.

1994(Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 391, 395 .) This public interest exception requires a clear showing that (1) the question is public in nature; (2) an authoritative determination is desirable for the guidance of public officers; and (3) the question will likely recur.

2024While Mr. Frazier acknowledges the claim is moot, he still asks us to review the appeal on the merits under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶ 10 “As a general rule, courts of review in Illinois do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions, or consider issues where the result will not be affected regardless of how those issues are decided.” In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482, 491 (1998).

2024Thus, we find that the third criterion of the public-interest exception is satisfied, and that the exception applies in this case. 7 ¶ 20 Turning to the capable-of-repetition exception, there are two requirements for the exception to apply: (1) that the challenged action “be of a duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation,” and (2) that there “be a reasonable expectation that ‘the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 358 (2009) (quoting Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 491 ). ¶ 21 Respondent argues, and the St

2026Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 181 ; Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517 (“congestion is a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the - 15 - 1-25-2211 case more quickly”); Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 555 (1992) (court congestion is the least significant of the public interest factors); Brumett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503 (1986) (“Courts should be extremely reluctant to dismiss a case from the forum rei gestae merely because that forum’s docket has a backlog.”). ¶ 36 The annual report of the Administrative Office of t

2025The public interest factors include “(1) the interest in deciding localized controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and the burden of jury duty on residents of a county with little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding further litigation to court dockets in already congested fora.” Id. at 516-17. ¶ 41 The defendant has the burden of showing that the balance of the relevant public and private interest factors strongly favors a dismissal and transfer (Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 188-89 ), and the circuit court mus

2026The Public-Interest Exception ¶ 37 There are three criteria for application of the public-interest exception: “(1) the - 12 - public nature of the question; (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers; and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.” In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402 (2002). ¶ 38 The supreme court has held, “[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 substa

2026The Public-Interest Exception ¶ 37 There are three criteria for application of the public-interest exception: “(1) the - 12 - public nature of the question; (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers; and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.” In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402 (2002). ¶ 38 The supreme court has held, “[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 substa

2014In re J.B., 204 Ill. 2d 382, 387 (2003); Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355 . ¶ 28 In the present case, Torry’s first contention – that the evidence shows that he has the capacity to make a reasoned decision about whether to take psychotropic medication – is purely a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, as such, does not qualify for the public interest exception.

2014In re J.B., 204 Ill. 2d 382, 387 (2003); Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355 . ¶ 28 In the present case, Torry’s first contention–that the evidence shows that he has the capacity to make a reasoned decision about whether to take psychotropic medication–is purely a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, as such, does not qualify for the public interest exception.

2022See In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d 148, 156 (2003) (an appeal is moot when intervening events have made it impossible for a reviewing court to grant effectual relief). ¶ 20 The parties agree, however, that this case is subject to review under both the mootness exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review and the public interest exception to mootness.

2014In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d at 156 . ¶ 21 The public interest exception is narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each of the foregoing factors.

2022The public interest exception is “narrowly construed” and a “a clear showing of each criterion is required to bring a case within its terms.” In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999).

2021It would be impossible to grant effectual relief in this appeal when (1) the search warrants were issued and executed, (2) the cellular telephone was searched with appellant’s consent, (3) the cellular telephone has been returned to appellant’s possession, and (4) appellant has not been charged with any crime as a result of the search. ¶ 10 Nevertheless, appellant claims the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. “[The supreme] court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine when the question involved is of a public nature, the circumstances are likely to recur,

2023Under the public interest exception, a court may review a moot issue when “ ‘(1) the moot question is public in nature, (2) it is desirable to provide an authoritative determination so as to offer guidance for public officers, and (3) it is likely that the question will reappear.’ ” Landmann, 2019 IL App (5th) 180137 , ¶ 12 (quoting Whitten v. Whitten, 292 Ill.

2019Under the public interest exception, a court may review a moot issue on the merits if “(1) the moot question is public in nature, (2) it is desirable to provide an authoritative determination so as to offer guidance for public officers, and (3) it is likely that the question will reappear.” Whitten v. Whitten, 292 Ill.

2025The public interest exception applies when “ ‘ “the question presented is of a public nature; (2) an authoritative determination of the question is desirable for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) the question is likely to recur.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth Edison Co., 2016 IL 118129 , ¶ 12, quoting In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994 , ¶ 16). ¶ 19 The Illinois Constitution mandates “[a]ll penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objection of restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” Ill.

2025The public interest exception applies only if “(1) the question presented is of a public nature; (2) an authoritative determination of the question is desirable for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) the question is likely to recur.” In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 .

2021“Every request for transfer based upon forum non conveniens must be decided pursuant to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’ ” Gridley, 217 Ill. 2d at 168 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). ¶ 28 In considering whether to grant or deny a motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens, a circuit court must balance the private interest factors that affect the litigants and the public interest factors that affect the administration of the courts.

2020“Every request for transfer based upon forum non conveniens must be decided pursuant to an ‘individualized, case-by-case 10 consideration of convenience and fairness.’ ” Gridley, 217 Ill. 2d at 168 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). ¶ 28 In considering whether to grant or deny a motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens, a circuit court must balance the private interest factors that affect the litigants and the public interest factors that affect the administration of the courts.

2025The relevant private and public interest factors for consideration are as follows: “[T]he private interest factors include (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; and (3) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive—for example, the availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost to obtain attendance of willing witnesses, and the ability to view the premises (if appropriate). [Citations.] The public interest factors include

2024The public interest factors include “(1) the interest in deciding controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing trial expense and the burden of jury duty on residents of a - 15 - Nos. 1-23-0095 and 1-23-0258 (cons.) forum that has little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding litigation to already congested court dockets.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44 . ¶ 39 Baker LLP argues the public interest factors support London, which has a greater interest in the dispute than Cook County because Lehram is a London-based firm and the Shchuk

2026“The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine permits review of an otherwise moot question when the magnitude or immediacy of the interests involved warrants action by the court.” Commonwealth Edison, 2016 IL 118129 , ¶ 12.

2026“The public interest exception is narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each of its criteria. [Citation.] If any one of the criteria is not established, the exception may not be invoked.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129 , ¶ 13.

2021See Kohan v. Rimland School for Autistic Children, 102 Ill.

1992App. 3d 524, 527 , 430 N.E.2d 139, 141 .) The public interest exception is invoked only on rare occasions where the degree of public interest and concern is “very clear” (People ex rel.

2013Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 ; Gridley, 217 Ill. 2d at 170 (quoting First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511 , 516 (2002)); Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 310 . ¶ 16 The relevant public interest factors include: the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues instead of being handled at its origin; the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the litigation; and the interest in having local controversies decided locally.

1995The public interest factors, as revealed by Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501 , 91 L.

2002"The public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding localized controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and the burden of jury duty on residents of a county with little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding further litigation to court dockets in already congested fora." Guerine, 198 Ill.2d at 516-17 , 261 Ill.Dec. 763 , 764 N.E.2d 54 , citing Griffith, 136 *328 Ill.2d at 106, 143 Ill.Dec. 274 , 554 N.E.2d 209 .

2002"The public interest factors include (1) the interest in deciding localized controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and the burden of jury duty on residents of a county with little connection to the litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding further litigation to court dockets in already congested fora." Guerine, 198 Ill.2d at 516-17 , 261 Ill.Dec. 763 , 764 N.E.2d 54 , citing Griffith, 136 *328 Ill.2d at 106, 143 Ill.Dec. 274 , 554 N.E.2d 209 .

1995The public-interest factors that need to be considered include "having localized controversies being decided in the local forum, administrative concerns, including the congestion of court dockets, and the imposition of jury duty upon residents of a county with little connection to the litigation.” Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337 , 645 N.E.2d at 191 .

1995The public-interest factors that need to be considered include "having localized controversies being decided in the local forum, administrative concerns, including the congestion of court dockets, and the imposition of jury duty upon residents of a county with little connection to the litigation.” Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 337 , 645 N.E.2d at 191 .

2025The exceptions include “(1) the public-interest exception, (2) the capable-of-repetition exception, and (3) the collateral-consequences exception.” Id. ¶ 16 The collateral consequences exception to mootness allows for appellate review “where collateral consequences survive the expiration or cessation of a court order that are likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial determination.” In re Rita P., 2014 IL 115798, ¶ 31 .

2021When evaluating if a mootness exception applies, the court must conduct a case-specific analysis “ ‘consider[ing] all the applicable exceptions in light of the relevant facts and legal claims raised in the appeal.’ ” In re Rita P., 2014 IL 115798, ¶ 32 (quoting Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 364 ). ¶ 20 A. Public Interest Exception ¶ 21 Gertrude first contends that the public interest exception applies to her case.

2013Applying the public interest exception, we noted that in situations where a child’s life is endangered, “public authorities must act promptly if their action is to be effective, and although the precise limits of authorized conduct cannot be fixed in advance, no greater uncertainty should exist than the nature of the problems makes inevitable.” Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 623 . ¶ 21 We have also considered various issues of first impression arising under our election law, including issues regarding eligibility to run for public office.

2013Applying the public interest exception, we noted that in situations where a child’s life is endangered, “public authorities must act promptly if their action is to be effective, and although the precise limits of authorized conduct cannot be fixed in advance, no greater uncertainty should exist than the nature of the problems makes inevitable.” Labrenz, 411 Ill. at 623 . ¶ 21 We have also considered various issues of first impression arising under our election law, including issues regarding eligibility to run for public office.

2025“The public interest factors include: (1) the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues; (2) the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the litigation; (3) and the interests of having local controversies decided locally.” Id. (citing Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 16 ). -8- 1-23-1744 ¶ 35 It is defendant’s burden to show the private and public interest factors “strongly favor” its choice of forum.

2025“The public interest factors include: (1) the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues; (2) the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the litigation; (3) and the interests of having local controversies decided locally.” Id. (citing Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 16 ). -8- 1-23-1744 ¶ 35 It is defendant’s burden to show the private and public interest factors “strongly favor” its choice of forum.

2016Our supreme court further found that, in any event, the appeal raised "an issue of election law which 'inherently is a matter of public concern' and reviewable under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine." Hossfeld, 238 Ill. 2d at 424 , 939 N.E.2d at 371 (quoting Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 , 886 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (2008)).

2016Our supreme court further found that, in any event, the appeal raised "an issue of election law which 'inherently is a matter of public concern' and reviewable under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine." Hossfeld, 238 Ill. 2d at 424 , 939 N.E.2d at 371 (quoting Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 , 886 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (2008)).