mootness doctrine in Alabama

2017We now turn to whether this issue of the automatic suspension provided in § 159 is a question of great public importance. “‘The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the. public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will generally recur.’ However, this ‘exception is construed narrowly ... and a clear showing of each criterion is required to bring a case within its terms.’ ” Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972, 989 (Ala. 2007)(internal

2009Actions § 81 (2005))." As the Riley defendants further note, this Court has explained "`the criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine'" as including (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 generally recur." Riley *76 defendants' opposition, at 10 (quoting Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972, 989 (Ala.2007) (quoting in turn 1A C.J.S.

2017The father argues, however, that, because he might seek further modifications of custody, including seeking pendente lite relief, in the future, this issue "falls within the exception to the doctrine of mootness." The father cites, among other *434 cases, McCoo v. State , 921 So.2d 450 , 458 (Ala. 2005), in which our supreme court explained the "exception to the mootness doctrine in a situation where the controversy involves an important issue that is 'capable of repetition but evading review.' " (Quoting other cases.) In McCoo , our supreme court addressed an issue where the action of the tri

2017The father argues, however, that, because he might seek further modifications of custody, including seeking pendente lite relief, in the future, this issue "falls within the exception to the doctrine of mootness." The father cites, among other *434 cases, McCoo v. State , 921 So.2d 450 , 458 (Ala. 2005), in which our supreme court explained the "exception to the mootness doctrine in a situation where the controversy involves an important issue that is 'capable of repetition but evading review.' " (Quoting other cases.) In McCoo , our supreme court addressed an issue where the action of the tri

2012We note that "[tjhere is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot 'where “a broad public interest is involved.” ' Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm'n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).... " 1 "The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will g

2009There is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot “where ‘a broad public interest is involved.’” Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm’n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).

2012We note that "[tjhere is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot 'where “a broad public interest is involved.” ' Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm'n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).... " 1 "The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will g

2009There is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot “where ‘a broad public interest is involved.’” Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm’n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).

2008See McCoo v. State , 921 So.2d 450 , 458 (Ala. 2005) (citing Griggs v. Bennett , 710 So.2d 411 , 412 n. 4 (Ala. 1998); Ex parte Birmingham News Co. , 624 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); and State ex rel.

2005However, this Court has long recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine in a situation where the controversy involves an important issue that is "capable of repetition but evading review." Griggs v. Bennett, 710 So.2d 411 , 412 n. 4 (Ala.1998); Ex parte Birmingham News Co., 624 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); and State ex rel.

2017However, despite the Judicial Inquiry Commission’s contention, that is not the end of the analysis. “ ‘Alabama courts do not give opinions in which there is no longer a justiciable controversy; yet, Alabama has recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: questions of great public interest and questions that are likely of repetition of the situation.’ ” Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So.3d 120, 127 (Ala. 2009).

2014The problem is therefore ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 515 [ (1911) ].” Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 , 89 S.Ct. 1493 , 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969).

2014See also Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 , 235 n. 48, 116 S.Ct. 1186 , 134 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (“Like other cases challenging electoral practices, therefore, this controversy is not moot because it is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”); Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 , 903 n. 10 (11th Cir.2007) (“Although the 2002 election cycle has passed, it is well settled that ballot access challenges fall under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.”). 13 Ordinarily the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mo

2014See also Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 , 235 n. 48, 116 S.Ct. 1186 , 134 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (“Like other cases challenging electoral practices, therefore, this controversy is not moot because it is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ”); Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 , 903 n. 10 (11th Cir.2007) (“Although the 2002 election cycle has passed, it is well settled that ballot access challenges fall under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.”). 13 Ordinarily the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mo

2014The problem is therefore ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 515 [ (1911) ].” Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 , 89 S.Ct. 1493 , 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969).

2014In Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. at 816 (quoted above), the Supreme Court rejected a mootness challenge to an election case because “candidates for statewide offices” not before the Court might encounter the same ballot obstacle in the future.

2014The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned: “Although the defendants argue that [plaintiffs challenge to President Obama’s eligibility] is moot, because the election is over, we consider the issue because ‘[t]his controversy, like most election cases, fits squarely within the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.’ Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92, 94 (3d Cir.2003).” Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 , 239 n. 5 (3d Cir.2009).

2009However, once the contracts had been honored and mootness set in, the County did not assert the applicability of any exception to the doctrine of mootness, e.g., “in those instances where an issue is capable of repetition, yet evades review.” Bright v. Calhoun, 988 So.2d 492, 495 (Ala.2008). 12 As a result, the County’s arguments regarding the Contract Clauses are barred by the doctrine of mootness, and the trial court’s judgment on this issue is affirmed.

2009However, once the contracts had been honored and mootness set in, the County did not assert the applicability of any exception to the doctrine of mootness, e.g., "in those instances where an issue is capable of repetition, yet evades review." Bright v. Calhoun, 988 So.2d 492, 495 (Ala.2008). [12] As a result, the County's arguments regarding the Contract Clauses are barred by the doctrine of mootness, and the trial court's judgment on this issue is affirmed.

2009Actions § 81 (2005))), and Graham v. Alabama State Employees' Ass'n, 991 So.2d 710, 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (applying the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine).

2009Actions § 81 (2005))), and Graham v. Alabama State Employees’ Ass’n, 991 So.2d 710, 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (applying the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine).

2005James, 711 So.2d 952, 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771, 772 (Ala.1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala.1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justiciability

2005James, 711 So.2d 952 , 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771 , 772 (Ala. 1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164 , 166 (Ala. 2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025 , 1028 (Ala. 1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 , 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justic

2005Eagerton v. Corwin, 359 So.2d 767, 769 (Ala.1977).

2005James, 711 So.2d 952, 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771, 772 (Ala.1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala.1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justiciability

2005James, 711 So.2d 952 , 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771 , 772 (Ala. 1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164 , 166 (Ala. 2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025 , 1028 (Ala. 1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 , 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justic

2005James, 711 So.2d 952, 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771, 772 (Ala.1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala.1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justiciability

2005James, 711 So.2d 952 , 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771 , 772 (Ala. 1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164 , 166 (Ala. 2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025 , 1028 (Ala. 1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 , 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justic

2005Kernells v. Ezell, 291 Ala. 440 , 282 So.2d 266, 270 (1973).

2005Kernells v. Ezell, 291 Ala. 440 , 282 So.2d 266, 270 (1973).

2005It is not enough that the initial requirements of standing and ripeness have been satisfied; the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation, to the moment of final appellate disposition.' "13A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533, at 211 (2d ed.1984) (footnote omitted)." 848 So.2d at 272-73 (Yates, P.J., concurring in the result) (emphasis added).

2005It is not enough that the initial requirements of standing and ripeness have been satisfied; the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation, to the moment of final appellate disposition.' "13A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice Procedure § 3533, at 211 (2d ed. 1984) (footnote omitted)." 848 So.2d at 272-73 (Yates, P.J., concurring in the result) (emphasis added).

2005James, 711 So.2d 952, 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771, 772 (Ala.1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala.1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justiciability

2005James, 711 So.2d 952 , 960 (Ala. 1998), quoting Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771 , 772 (Ala. 1990). `Standing requires injury in fact.' Kid's Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164 , 166 (Ala. 2002). "`Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation."' State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025 , 1028 (Ala. 1999), quoting National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 , 255 , 114 S.Ct. 798 , 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). "`Mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justic

2000Rule 27 petitions requesting pre-filing depositions and may have to draw appeals to each case until the issue is resolved on appeal." The Brewer Center relies on an exception to the mootness doctrine, but the exception it relies on applies only when the following two elements are met: "[T]he challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 12 (5th ed.1994); see also City of Lo

2000Rule 27 petitions requesting pre-filing depositions and may have to draw appeals to each case until the issue is resolved on appeal." The Brewer Center relies on an exception to the mootness doctrine, but the exception it relies on applies only when the following two elements are met: "[T]he challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 12 (5th ed.1994); see also City of Lo

1984See Arrington, supra, and Willis v. Buchman, 240 Ala. 386 , 199 So. 892 (1940).