mootness doctrine in Massachusetts

2016Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commn., 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911).

2016Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commn., 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). 5 c. 123, § 16(c), which contains no such reference, does not similarly apply.

2016We agree with the parties’ assessment that, although E.C. has been released, this case is not moot because the question it presents falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine because it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Karchmar v. Worcester, 364 Mass. 124, 136 (1973), quoting from Southern Pac.

2016L. 4 We agree with the parties' assessment that, although E.C. has been released, this case is not moot because the question it presents falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine because it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Karchmar v. Worcester, 364 Mass. 124, 136 (1973), quoting from Southern Pac.

2019We thus conclude that the DLR correctly determined that it had jurisdiction. 12 "The mootness doctrine applies to judicial review of administrative decisions as well as to appellate review of lower court decisions." International Marathons, Inc . v. Attorney Gen ., 392 Mass. 376 , 380, 467 N.E.2d 55 (1984). 13 To determine whether a case has become moot while it is on appeal, we may consider evidence introduced by the parties in the form of affidavits.

2019We thus conclude that the DLR correctly determined that it had jurisdiction. 12 "The mootness doctrine applies to judicial review of administrative decisions as well as to appellate review of lower court decisions." International Marathons, Inc . v. Attorney Gen ., 392 Mass. 376 , 380, 467 N.E.2d 55 (1984). 13 To determine whether a case has become moot while it is on appeal, we may consider evidence introduced by the parties in the form of affidavits.

2023Here, "the application of the mootness doctrine is warranted" because FNMA no longer has any possessory interest in the property.5 Robinson v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 935, 936 (2005) (plaintiff's claim for medical eligibility was moot because "even if [the plaintiff] could prove the essential elements of a [G.

2019Doe v. Superintendent of Sch. of Worcester , 421 Mass. 117 , 123, 653 N.E.2d 1088 (1995), citing Hubrite Informal Frocks, Inc . v. Kramer , 297 Mass. 530 , 532-533, 9 N.E.2d 570 (1937) ("Affidavits are the proper way to raise a question of mootness"). 14 To comply with the prohibition on the collection of agency fees announced in Janus , 138 S.Ct. at 2486 , the general counsel of the MTA sent letters to its local affiliates on April 25 and May 2, 2018, instructing them to stop collecting agency fees preemptively as of June 1, 2018, in the event that "the collection of agency fees is declared u

2019Doe v. Superintendent of Sch. of Worcester , 421 Mass. 117 , 123, 653 N.E.2d 1088 (1995), citing Hubrite Informal Frocks, Inc . v. Kramer , 297 Mass. 530 , 532-533, 9 N.E.2d 570 (1937) ("Affidavits are the proper way to raise a question of mootness"). 14 To comply with the prohibition on the collection of agency fees announced in Janus , 138 S.Ct. at 2486 , the general counsel of the MTA sent letters to its local affiliates on April 25 and May 2, 2018, instructing them to stop collecting agency fees preemptively as of June 1, 2018, in the event that "the collection of agency fees is declared u

2018Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 61 (2014), quoting Wolf v. Commissioner of Pub.

2015Lockhart v. Attorney Gen., 390 Mass. 780, 783 (1984), quoting from Wolf v. Commissioner of Pub.

2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul-Alazim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002).

2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul- Alázim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002).

2015However, a moot case nevertheless can be heard if it presents an issue “of public importance, capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Superintendent of Worcester State Hosp. v. Hagberg, 374 Mass. 271, 274 (1978). 8 As the dissent accurately points out, this long-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine has par ticular application to litigation involving inmate rights given the often ephemeral nature of the alleged improprieties being challenged.

2008Moreover, “notwithstanding the lack of a live controversy,” we are willing to make an exception to the mootness doctrine where the parties have fully briefed and argued the issues of a case, Delaney v. Commonwealth, 415 Mass. 490, 492 (1993), and where the issues are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Wolf v. Commissioner of Pub.

2007Acting Superintendent of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, 431 Mass. 101, 103 (2000).

2005See Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 703-707 (1976); International Marathons, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 392 Mass. 376, 380-381 (1984); Matter of Sturtz, 410 Mass. 58, 59-60 (1991).

2005See Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. at 207-208 (as individual waivers of local legislation, nonconforming uses should be unusual).

2005See Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 703-707 (1976); International Marathons, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 392 Mass. 376, 380-381 (1984); Matter of Sturtz, 410 Mass. 58, 59-60 (1991).

2000Even were we to assume that the issues in Olan’s case were moot due to her eviction, an exception to the mootness doctrine is that an issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Metros v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 396 Mass. 156, 159 (1985), quoting from Southern Pac.

1996“Ordinarily, litigation is considered moot when the party who claimed to be aggrieved ceases to have a personal stake in its outcome.” Stokes v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Walpole, 389 Mass. 883, 886 (1983).

1984I cannot rightly say that every provision of this petition is related to a common purpose and therefore cannot certify that the petition contains only subjects which are related or which are mutually dependent.” In his letter he states in part: “While the case is arguably moot, it rightly falls within a well-established exception to the mootness doctrine, raising as it does a question ‘of public importance which is capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ This exception has been accepted by this Court in cases such as Grace v. Town of Brookline, 379 Mass. 43, 48 (1979), and by the United St

1984I cannot rightly say that every provision of this petition is related to a common purpose and therefore cannot certify that the petition contains only subjects which are related or which are mutually dependent.” In his letter he states in part: “While the case is arguably moot, it rightly falls within a well-established exception to the mootness doctrine, raising as it does a question ‘of public importance which is capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ This exception has been accepted by this Court in cases such as Grace v. Town of Brookline, 379 Mass. 43, 48 (1979), and by the United St

1984The mootness doctrine applies to judicial review of administrative decisions as well as to appellate review of lower court decisions.See, for example, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. FPC, 606 F.2d 1373 , 1379 (D.C.