mootness doctrine in Illinois

2026We recognize that “[t]here are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including the collateral consequences doctrine.” Id. ¶ 9 (citing In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 361 (2009)).

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).

2026There are two criteria for this exception to the doctrine of mootness: “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Id. ¶ 54 Unquestionably, the first of those criteria is met.

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).

2025“It is a basic tenet of justiciability that reviewing courts will not decide moot or abstract questions or render advisory opinions. [Citations.] An appeal is considered moot where it presents no actual controversy or where the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist because intervening events have rendered it impossible for the reviewing - 12 - 1-24-1076 court to grant effectual relief to the complaining party.” In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338, 349-50 (2006) (citing In re Tekela, 202 Ill. 2d 282, 292-93 (2002)). “[T]here are three established exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) th

2025“It is a basic tenet of justiciability that reviewing courts will not decide moot or abstract questions or render advisory opinions. [Citation.] An appeal is considered moot where it presents no actual controversy or where the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist because intervening events have rendered it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effectual relief to the complaining party.” In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338, 349-50 (2006) (citing In re Tekela, 202 Ill. 2d 282, 292-93 (2002)). “[T]here are three established exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the ‘public interest

2009See In re Robert S., 213 Ill.2d 30, 45-46 , 289 Ill.Dec. 648 , 820 N.E.2d 424 (2004) (invoking the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving the involuntary medication of a mental health patient); In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill.2d 393, 401-03 , 269 Ill.Dec. 440 , 781 N.E.2d 237 (2002) (also applying the public interest exception).

2009See In re Robert S., 213 Ill. 2d 30, 45-46 (2004) (invoking the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving the involuntary medication of a mental health patient); In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 401-03 (2002) (also applying the public interest exception).

2007An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases involving an event of short duration that is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 258 , 537 N.E.2d 292, 296 (1989), quoting Madison Park Bank v. Zagel, 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236 , 437 N.E.2d 638, 640 (1982).

2007An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases involving an event of short duration that is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 258 , 537 N.E.2d 292, 296 (1989), quoting Madison Park Bank v. Zagel, 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236 , 437 N.E.2d 638, 640 (1982).

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

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.

2021See In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d at 156 . ¶ 26 There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, however.

2024See, e.g., In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 401 , 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002) (finding the appeal was moot where the involuntary treatment order had expired). ¶ 27 Despite being moot, respondent invites this court to consider this appeal and the issues raised herein under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review and public interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2024See, e.g., In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 401 , 781 N.E.2d 237, 242 (2002) (finding the appeal was moot where the involuntary treatment order had expired). ¶ 27 Despite being moot, respondent invites this court to consider this appeal and the issues raised herein under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review and public interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2019However, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine “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 , 995 N.E.2d 990 (quoting Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 392 , 876 N.E.2d 650, 657 (2007)).

2019However, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine “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 , 995 N.E.2d 990 (quoting Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 392 , 876 N.E.2d 650, 657 (2007)).

2011Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill.2d 391, 395 , 199 Ill.Dec. 659 , 634 N.E.2d 712 (1994).

1994Assuming arguendo that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine may apply to Airport I, the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff has established the second or third elements of the Bonaguro test set forth above (Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d at 395 ).

2007An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases involving an event of short duration that is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 258 , 537 N.E.2d 292, 296 (1989), quoting Madison Park Bank v. Zagel, 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236 , 437 N.E.2d 638, 640 (1982).

2007An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases involving an event of short duration that is “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 258 , 537 N.E.2d 292, 296 (1989), quoting Madison Park Bank v. Zagel, 91 Ill. 2d 231, 236 , 437 N.E.2d 638, 640 (1982).

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.

2022App. 3d at 288 (same); Whitten v. Whitten, 292 Ill.

1994However, the mootness doctrine is ordinarily not applicable to proceeding under the Code but may be invoked only when dismissal (1) would not have the effect of eliminating an " entire class of cases from appellate review" and (2) would not leave " collateral legal consequences which survive the expiration of the order under review." (Emphasis added.) ( In re Wathan (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 64, 65 , 59 Ill.Dec. 884, 885 , 432 N.E.2d 670, 671 , citing In re Sciara (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 889 , 316 N.E.2d 153 ; see also In re Thompson (1991), 215 Ill.App.3d 986, 987-88 , 159 Ill.Dec. 168,169 , 575 N

1994However, the mootness doctrine is ordinarily not applicable to proceedings under the Code but may be invoked only when dismissal (1) would not have the effect of eliminating an "entire class of cases from appellate review” and (2) would not leave "collateral legal consequences which survive the expiration of the order under review.” (Emphasis added.) (In re Wathan (1982), 104 Ill.

1999We are aware of the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows us to consider a moot issue that involves a substantial public or private interest (Richardson, 179 Ill. 2d at 256, 688 N.E.2d at 635), but we need not consider the applicability of that exception here where our proceeding analysis in case No. 1 — 98—2638 will adequately address the concerns raised by plaintiffs.

1999We are aware of the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows us to consider a moot issue that involves a substantial public or private interest (Richardson, 179 Ill. 2d at 256, 688 N.E.2d at 635), but we need not consider the applicability of that exception here where our proceeding analysis in case No. 1 — 98—2638 will adequately address the concerns raised by plaintiffs.

2011Collateral-Consequences Exception The collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise moot case where the involuntary admission "could return to plague the respondent in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the respondent’s life." In re Val Q., 396 Ill.

2011Collateral-Consequences Exception The collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an otherwise moot case where the involuntary admission “could return to plague the respondent in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the respondent’s life.” In re Val Q., 396 Ill.

2025Id. at 435- 4 36 (choosing to address the merits under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); see also People v. Funches, 2019 IL App (3d) 160644, ¶ 8 . ¶ 14 Here, defendant was released from IDOC on June 13, 2025, and is currently on parole.1 According to IDOC’s records, she is serving a one-year term of MSR.

2020See People v. Roberson, 212 Ill. 2d 430, 435 (2004). ¶ 20 “[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, and an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers is desirable.” 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,

2020See People v. Roberson, 212 Ill. 2d 430, 435 (2004). ¶ 20 “[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, and an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers is desirable.” In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999).

2009Accordingly, we hold that we will no longer adhere to * * * cases in which this court utilized the collateral-legal-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in mental-health cases." 379 Ill.App.3d at 1029, 320 Ill.Dec. 260 , 887 N.E.2d 40 .

2009Accordingly, we hold that we will no longer adhere to *** cases in which this court utilized the collateral-legal-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in mental-health cases.” 379 Ill.

2014The “public interest” exception is “narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005) (citing In re India B., 202 Ill. 2d 522, 543 (2002), and In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999)). ¶ 34 The Attorney General argues that the case before us does not meet the rigid standards of the public interest exception necessary for our application of this exception to the mootness doctrine.

2014The “public interest” exception is “narrowly construed and requires a clear showing of each criterion.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farrell, 216 Ill. 2d 287, 292 (2005) (citing In re India B., 202 Ill. 2d 522, 543 (2002), and In re Adoption of Walgreen, 186 Ill. 2d 362, 365 (1999)). ¶ 34 The Attorney General argues that the case before us does not meet the rigid standards of the public interest exception necessary for our application of this exception to the mootness doctrine.

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“Absent a clearly applicable exception to the doctrine of mootness, a moot appeal must be dismissed.” People v. Dawson, 2020 IL App (4th) 170872, ¶ 20 (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129 , ¶ 21). ¶ 24 Moreover, even if plaintiff’s appeal was not moot, the underlying issues before this court are plaintiff’s attempts to relitigate the divorce proceedings through her emergency motion in the case sub judice.

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.

2020Additionally, “[c]ollateral consequences must be identified that could stem solely from the present adjudication.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Rita P., 2014 IL 115798, ¶ 34 . ¶ 20 This court has jurisdiction over an appeal that is moot if it falls within any one of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2025The mootness doctrine dictates that “we must dismiss an appeal when the issues involved have ceased to exist because intervening events have made it impossible for us to grant effectual relief.” Hill, 2011 IL 110928, ¶ 6 . ¶ 32 In the immediate case, we are not able to grant effectual relief.

2021As noted by the State, the mootness doctrine requires a court of review to dismiss an appeal when “the issues involved have ceased to exist because intervening events have made it impossible for [the court] to grant effectual relief.” People v. Hill, 2011 IL 110928, ¶ 6 , 961 N.E.2d 773 .

2025We agree with defendant. ¶ 22 “[T]he public interest exception to the mootness doctrine permits review when the interests involved are of the appropriate magnitude or immediacy.” Tibbs, 2025 IL App (4th) 240378 , ¶ 16 (citing In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 ). “ ‘Application of this exception, which is narrowly construed, requires a clear showing of each of the following criteria: (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.’ ” Id. (quo

2025We agree with defendant. ¶ 22 “[T]he public interest exception to the mootness doctrine permits review when the interests involved are of the appropriate magnitude or immediacy.” Tibbs, 2025 IL App (4th) 240378 , ¶ 16 (citing In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 ). “ ‘Application of this exception, which is narrowly construed, requires a clear showing of each of the following criteria: (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.’ ” Id. (quo

1988Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 622-23 .) We refuse to use the mootness doctrine to make de facto rulings that arise simply because construction crews triumph in a race against the State judiciary. *9 The Prevailing Wage Act was enacted in 1941, earlier versions having been declared unconstitutional.

1988Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 622-23 .) We refuse to use the mootness doctrine to make de facto rulings that arise simply because construction crews triumph in a race against the State judiciary.

2026See Elsamny v. Peoria County 13 Board of Election Commissioners, 2018 IL App (3d) 170295, ¶ 10 (“ ‘It is well established under Illinois law that the conclusion of an election cycle normally moots an election contest.’ ” (quoting Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 2012 IL 111928, ¶ 36 )). ¶ 34 Alternatively, if her appeal is moot, the County Clerk maintains that we should decide the case pursuant to the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

2024See Jackson, 2012 IL 111928, ¶ 44 (listing the three criteria for that exception). 17 No. 1-24-1566 Rather, it is a requirement for another exception to the mootness doctrine, where an issue is capable of repetition yet avoiding review.