14 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Department of Financegreen2 sentences2023The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist to “prevent either party from creating a technical mootness as a sham to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Cat's Meow, Inc., 1998-0601, p. 9, 720 So.2d at 1193 . 2015The Louisiana Supreme Court in Cat’s Meow, 720 So.2d 1186 , discussed two jurisprudentially recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine that have been crafted to prevent either party from creating a technical mootness as a sham to deprive the court of jurisdiction. | 3 | 10 |
State v. Malonegreen1 sentence2024See State v. Malone, 08- 2253, pp. 3, 13- 14 ( La. 12/ 1/ 09), 25 So. 3d 113, 123 ( observing that for criminal cases, Louisiana follows the traditional rule, rather than the liberal rule that provides that an accused' s interest in clearing his name permits review even after the sentence has been satisfied) and In re C. | 1 | 1 |
In re Englandgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825, 831 , 758 *887 N.W.2d 10, 17 (2008). 13 Although not necessarily made explicit or developed to this degree, “almost every state in the union has an exception for cases on appeal that raise questions of ‘continuing public importance.’” Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. | 1 | 1 |
Johnston v. Inggreen2 sentences2011The conduct of an involuntary civil commitment hearing is of public importance.”); Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 , 356 n. 4 (Colo.1986) (noting that considerations important to a determination of mootness include "whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review” and "whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation.”); Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983) ("We have delineated a 'public interest’ exception to the mootness doctrine ...”); Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 1 2011The conduct of an involuntary civil commitment hearing is of public importance.”); Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 , 356 n. 4 (Colo.1986) (noting that considerations important to a determination of mootness include "whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review” and "whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation.”); Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983) ("We have delineated a 'public interest’ exception to the mootness doctrine ...”); Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Holly v. Montesgreen2 sentences2011See also Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill.2d 153, 158 , 324 Ill.Dec. 481 , 896 N.E.2d 267, 271 (Ill.2008) ("Unlike in the recurrence exception, the public interest exception considers potential recurrences to any entity, not only the complaining party.”). 13 . 2011See also Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill.2d 153, 158 , 324 Ill.Dec. 481 , 896 N.E.2d 267, 271 (Ill.2008) ("Unlike in the recurrence exception, the public interest exception considers potential recurrences to any entity, not only the complaining party.”). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Rush v. Raygreen1 sentence2011The conduct of an involuntary civil commitment hearing is of public importance.”); Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 , 356 n. 4 (Colo.1986) (noting that considerations important to a determination of mootness include "whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review” and "whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation.”); Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983) ("We have delineated a 'public interest’ exception to the mootness doctrine ...”); Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Interest of Anayagreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825, 831 , 758 *887 N.W.2d 10, 17 (2008). 13 Although not necessarily made explicit or developed to this degree, “almost every state in the union has an exception for cases on appeal that raise questions of ‘continuing public importance.’” Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. | 1 | 1 |
Louisiana State Board of Nursing v. Gautreauxgreen1 sentence2010See Louisiana State Bd. of Nursing, 2009-1758 atp. 3, 39 So.3d at 812 . . | 1 | 1 |
County of Los Angeles v. Davisgreen2 sentences1998Compare City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 , 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070 , 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur) with County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleg 1998Compare City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 , 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070 , 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur) with County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleg | 1 | 1 |
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.green2 sentences1998Compare City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 , 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070 , 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur) with County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleg 1998Compare City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 , 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070 , 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur) with County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (noting that a case may be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleg | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Myers
green
1 sentence2024City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Myers, 13-2011, pp. 19-20 (La. 5/7/14), 145 So.3d 320, 337 ; Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Department of Finance, 98-0601, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1194 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Millsap
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 15), 2015 WL 9435190 , at * 4 n.7, writs denied, 15- 2251 ( La. 12/ 23/ 15), 184 So. 3d 687 and 16- 0197 ( La. 3/ 4/ 16), 188 So. 3d 1055 , and writ not considered, 16- 1304 ( La. 7/ 12/ 16), 194 So. 3d 1130 ( observing that Louisiana does not presume that any accompanying stigma associated with a. person being involuntarily committed and released unconditionally constitutes a collateral consequence exception to the mootness doctrine). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State ex rel. Spellman v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 15), 2015 WL 9435190 , at * 4 n.7, writs denied, 15- 2251 ( La. 12/ 23/ 15), 184 So. 3d 687 and 16- 0197 ( La. 3/ 4/ 16), 188 So. 3d 1055 , and writ not considered, 16- 1304 ( La. 7/ 12/ 16), 194 So. 3d 1130 ( observing that Louisiana does not presume that any accompanying stigma associated with a. person being involuntarily committed and released unconditionally constitutes a collateral consequence exception to the mootness doctrine). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 15), 2015 WL 9435190 , at * 4 n.7, writs denied, 15- 2251 ( La. 12/ 23/ 15), 184 So. 3d 687 and 16- 0197 ( La. 3/ 4/ 16), 188 So. 3d 1055 , and writ not considered, 16- 1304 ( La. 7/ 12/ 16), 194 So. 3d 1130 ( observing that Louisiana does not presume that any accompanying stigma associated with a. person being involuntarily committed and released unconditionally constitutes a collateral consequence exception to the mootness doctrine). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Zoning Board of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss
green
1 sentence2011The conduct of an involuntary civil commitment hearing is of public importance.”); Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 , 356 n. 4 (Colo.1986) (noting that considerations important to a determination of mootness include "whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review” and "whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation.”); Rush v. Ray, 332 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Iowa 1983) ("We have delineated a 'public interest’ exception to the mootness doctrine ...”); Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 1 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Hughes v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit
green
1 sentence2011R.S. § 14:322.1, which prohibited the defense from surreptitiously recording interviews with potential witnesses while allowing the state to record such interviews. 526 So.2d 223 (La.1988). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carafas v. LaVallee
green
2 sentences1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. 1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.