public interest exception in Iowa

2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S

2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S

2020Godfrey v. State, 752 N.W.2d 413 , 419–20 (Iowa 2008) (stating willingness to consider a public interest exception to standing requirements, generally); Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983) (finding a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine).

2015Thus, in Rush , we reversed a trial court’s dismissal of an action challenging a line-item veto, reasoning that “the question should have been considered under the public interest exception.” 332 N.W.2d at 327 .

2015There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might 19 be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not apply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-important exception to mootness in a line-item veto case).

2015There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not ap *332 ply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-important exception to mootness in a line-item veto case).

2015There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might 19 be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not apply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-important exception to mootness in a line-item veto case).

2015There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not ap *332 ply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-important exception to mootness in a line-item veto case).

2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S

2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S

2025Restatement (Second) of Torts § 598; see also Brown v. First Nat’l Bank, 193 N.W.2d 547 , 552–53 (Iowa 1972) (discussing a former version of this rule but 7 See, e.g., Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593, 600 (Ind. 2007); Kennedy v. Sheriff of E.

2025Restatement (Second) of Torts § 598; see also Brown v. First Nat’l Bank, 193 N.W.2d 547 , 552–53 (Iowa 1972) (discussing a former version of this rule but 7 See, e.g., Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593, 600 (Ind. 2007); Kennedy v. Sheriff of E.

2024Council v. Wifvat, 328 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa 1983).

2022Firm, P.C. v. Wolf, 226 A.3d 569 , 569–70 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam) (dismissing a challenge to an emergency order that closed the plaintiff law firm’s “physical operations” once that order was modified to exempt 23 legal services); Allen, 2021 WL 2948775 , at *3 (declining to apply the public- importance exception where there was no reasonable expectation “that the Plaintiffs will be subjected to the complained-of requirements in the future”); State v. City of Austin, NO. 03–20–00619–CV, 2021 WL 1313349 , at *7 (Tex. App. Apr. 8, 2021) (“[T]he State’s claims for the particular injunctive relief

2019See State v. Hernandez- Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002) (noting factors).

2017See Alons, 698 N.W.2d at 864 .

2013See Rarey v. State, 616 N.W.2d 531, 532 (Iowa 2000) (finding the public interest exception did not apply where the issues "relate[d] peculiarly to [the appellant's] particular situation”); In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 , 331 Ill.Dec. 1 , 910 N.E.2d 74, 81 (2009) (noting that sufficiency of the evidence claims "are inherently case-specific reviews”). .

2013See Rarey v. State, 616 N.W.2d 531, 532 (Iowa 2000) (finding the public interest exception did not apply where the issues "relate[d] peculiarly to [the appellant's] particular situation”); In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 , 331 Ill.Dec. 1 , 910 N.E.2d 74, 81 (2009) (noting that sufficiency of the evidence claims "are inherently case-specific reviews”). .

2013Obviously, these kinds of cases will now be added to the court of appeals’ caseload, as will the many appeals that were not previously brought because attorneys assumed they were moot (not to mention the appeals that we dismissed as moot on motion prior to any transfer). 9See Rarey v. State, 616 N.W.2d 531, 532 (Iowa 2000) (finding the public interest exception did not apply where the issues “relate[d] peculiarly to [the appellant’s] particular situation”); In re Alfred H.H., 910 N.E.2d 74, 81 (Ill. 2009) (noting that sufficiency of the evidence claims “are inherently case-specific reviews”).

2013See Rarey v. State, 616 N.W.2d 531, 532 (Iowa 2000) (finding the public interest exception did not apply where the issues "relate[d] peculiarly to [the appellant's] particular situation”); In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 , 331 Ill.Dec. 1 , 910 N.E.2d 74, 81 (2009) (noting that sufficiency of the evidence claims "are inherently case-specific reviews”). .

1998We have explained that the public has an interest in the evaluation and possible treatment because it “can benefit the public by aiding persons who, but for substance abuse, would make useful citizens who would pose no threat to society.” State v. Squires, 545 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Iowa 1996).

1989See, e.g., Dickey v. CBS, Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 , 1226 n. 5 (3d Cir.1978); Newell v. Field Enter., Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 735, 756-57 , 47 Ill.Dec. 429, 446-47 , 415 N.E.2d 434, 451-52 (1980).

1989See, e.g., Dickey v. CBS, Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 , 1226 n. 5 (3d Cir.1978); Newell v. Field Enter., Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 735, 756-57 , 47 Ill.Dec. 429, 446-47 , 415 N.E.2d 434, 451-52 (1980).

1989See, e.g., Dickey v. CBS, Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 , 1226 n. 5 (3d Cir.1978); Newell v. Field Enter., Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 735, 756-57 , 47 Ill.Dec. 429, 446-47 , 415 N.E.2d 434, 451-52 (1980).

1983Turner v. Beuchele, 236 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Iowa 1975) (county supervisor’s challenge to his removal from office rendered moot by his death; the public interest exception “has nothing to do with the notoriety of the case.

1983We believe any likelihood of recurrence is negligible .... ”); State v. Wilson, 234 N.W.2d 140, 141 (Iowa 1975) (defendant’s challenge to his work release revocation, after his release from jail, “does not present a matter of significant public interest or precedent .... ”).