public interest exception in Indiana

2025Though we generally dismiss moot cases, “Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” Id. (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). [14] T.G. claims her appeal involves issues of great public importance and urges us to consider their merits under the public interest exception.

2025Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 219 N.E.3d 142 , 146-47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). [18] “‘Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.’” E.F., 188 N.E.3d at 466 (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)).

2024Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019) (“The public interest exception may be invoked when an issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” (cleaned up)).

2020Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center, Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019) (“Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.”) (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)).

2018See Durham, 748 N.E.2d at 410 (“An issue becomes moot when it is no longer live . . . or when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties.”). [13] Neither are we persuaded by Kosinski’s assertion that we should entertain his appeal under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

2017Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Durham, 748 N.E.2d 404, 412 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“Although Indiana does not require that the issue be capable of repetition, cases falling into the public interest exception usually involve issues that are likely to recur.”).

2008Nevertheless, this public interest exception may only be invoked upon the existence of three elements: the issue concerns a question of great public importance which is likely to recur in a context which will continue to evade review." DeSalle, 818 N.E.2d at 49 (citation omitted).

2008Nevertheless, this public interest exception may only be invoked upon the existence of three elements: the issue concerns a question of great public importance which is likely to recur in a context which will continue to evade review.” DeSalle, 818 N.E.2d at 49 (citation omitted).

2006In re Marriage of Stariha, 509 N.E.2d 1117, 1128 (Ind.Ct.App.1987).

1991In re Marriage of Stariha (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 1117, 1123 (citing Bartholomew, supra, at 759 ).

2025Though we generally dismiss moot cases, “Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” Id. (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). [14] T.G. claims her appeal involves issues of great public importance and urges us to consider their merits under the public interest exception.

2019When this Court elects to address an issue under the public interest exception, it need not "address all of the issues in the case as presented by the parties." Lawrance , 579 N.E.2d at 37 .

2014See, e.g., Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 , 1036 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

2013See, e.g., Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 , 1036 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (2005).

2001City of Huntingburg v. Phoenix Natural Res., Inc., 625 N.E.2d 472, 474 (Ind.Ct.App.1993).

1996However, even when an appeal is moot, we can review issues under a public interest exception which may be invoked when the case involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur. 1 Id.

2019"A public interest exception may be invoked upon the confluence of three elements: (1) the issue involves a question of great public importance; (2) the factual situation precipitating the issue is likely to recur; and (3) the issue arises in a context which will continue to evade review." Id.

2013Both parties cite Jones for the definition of the public interest exception, but in Jones this court stated that the public interest exception applies when "the issue arises in a context which will continue to evade review." Jones, 847 N.E.2d at 200 .

2018See City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 778 n.4 (“While we fully understand that this matter of great public interest to the Remonstrators, the public interest exception as contemplated by the law involves a public interest to the greater general public.”).

2012See Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d 769, 778 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (refusing to apply the public interest exception where the issue did not involve a public interest to the greater general public beyond the parties), trans. pending. 15 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ) AND PRESIDENT ELDEN WOLTING, ) ) Appellants, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02-1101-PL-27 ) INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ) ) Appellee. ) ) VAIDIK, Judge, concurring in result.

1998Id.

1998Id.

2011Haggerty v. Bloomington Bd. of Public Safety, 474 N.E.2d 114, 116 (Ind.Ct.App.1985).

2004Haggerty v. Bloomington Bd. of Public Safety, 474 N.E.2d 114, 116 (Ind.Ct.App.1985).

2011Board of Comm’rs of Morgan County v. Wagoner, 699 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

2004Bd. of Comm'rs of Morgan County v. Wagoner, 699 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citation omitted).

2018“Issues that are likely to recur generally fall within the public interest exception.” C.T.S., 781 N.E.2d at 1198 (citing R.A. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)).

2011Id.

2025E.F., 188 N.E.3d at 467 (collecting cases); In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 , 798–99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

2025E.F., 188 N.E.3d at 467 (collecting cases); In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 , 798–99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

1991In re Marriage of Stariha (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 1117, 1123 (citing Bartholomew, supra, at 759 ).

1987Furthermore, a moot appeal will be decided under the public interest exception only “when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur in a context which will continue to evade review.” Ryan , at 759.

2018“Issues that are likely to recur generally fall within the public interest exception.” C.T.S., 781 N.E.2d at 1198 (citing R.A. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 376, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)).

2016C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1198 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied.

2009The court noted that in Pate v. Service Merchandise Co., 959 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996), the Tennessee Court of Appeals adopted this view of the public interest privilege and held that a store elerk who reported suspicious criminal activity to a private security guard and theft victim was protected by the public interest privilege.

2009The public interest privilege is grounded in public policy, and we should encourage cooperation with an investigation of a criminal matter. [Pate, 959 S.W.2d at 576-77 .] Just as statements to law enforcement further a public interest, similar statements made to a private citizen may further the same interest.

2024“Issues that are likely to recur–such as the observation of the twenty-day detention limit of Indiana Code § 31-37-11-2 when DNA testing is involved–generally fall within the public interest exception.” C.L.Y. v. State, 816 N.E.2d 894, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (2005).

2024Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464 , 466 (Ind. 2022) (“Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.”) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JM-2671 | April 24, 2024 Page 7 of 11 [12] Turning to the trial court’s finding of contempt, we note that “[i]t is soundly within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether a party is in contempt, and we review the judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.” Steele-Giri v. Steele,

2024“We will reverse a trial court’s finding of contempt only if there is no evidence or inference therefrom to support the finding.” Id.

2023See Snyder v. King, 958 N.E.2d 764, 786 (Ind. 2011). [10] Just recently, this Court considered the merits of appeals from expired temporary commitment orders without invoking the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.