public interest exception in Alaska

2021See Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985) (“The public interest exception involves the consideration of three main factors: 1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, 2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues and, 3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.”). –2– 2698 introduction of the recording.” The superior court accordingly granted Powell’s motion to dismiss.

1995"The Cook Inlet subsistence salmon regulations at issue in this case have been reinstated, and there is now no case or controversy concerning the all Alaskans policy underlying those regulations." [6] The test for application of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine involves three main factors: "(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues and, (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine." Hayes

2025The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine considers “three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” 11 The State argues that Lila’s appeal fails to meet the first and third factors because the disputed issues are highly “fact bound and individualized” and do not raise “broadly applicable legal questions.” But Czech testi

2022See In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 , 930 n.60 (Alaska 2019) (“[R]egardless of the type of involuntary admission or medication proceeding being challenged or the legal basis for appeal, the public interest exception authorizes us to consider any such appeal on the merits.”). 6 In re Hospitalization of Darren M., 426 P.3d 1021, 1030 (Alaska 2018). 7 Id. at 1027 (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007), overruled on other grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d at 924-31 ). -6- 1873 prior discharge from API, and that the only other testimony ab

2023We agree with the State that the superior court has jurisdiction under AS 13.26.710 to appoint OPA to serve as guardian as a matter of last resort Seafood Processors Ass’n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska 1995) (“The public interest exception requires the consideration of three main factors: (1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.”). -2- OR

2022Accordingly, we conclude that the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine is satisfied and that review on the merits is appropriate in this case. 4 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Local 1324 v. Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Alaska 2002) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska 1995)). 5 See, e.g., Morris v. State, Court of Appeals File No. A-13011 (Order dated Jan. 14, 2020). –3– 2717 Why we conclude that the parole earned-compliance credits statute only applies to time spent on parole after the statute’s effective date This case presents a ques

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 996 & n.30 (Alaska 2006)). 21 See Ch. 41 § 28, SLA 2002. 22 Cf. Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (declining to apply the public interest exception to mootness where the relevant statutes had been changed). -10- 7684 was subject to the civil commitment statutes.23 But the issues in that case were framed differently than they are in this case, so that decision does not control our analysis here.24 In this case the Tribe argues that OCS was required to petition for Mira’s involuntary commitment under AS 47.30.70

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 146 P.3d 991 , 996 & n.30 (Alaska 2006)). 21 See Ch. 41 § 28, SLA 2002. 22 Cf. Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005) (declining to apply the public interest exception to mootness where the relevant statutes had been changed). -10- 7684 was subject to the civil commitment statutes. 23 But the issues in that case were framed differently than they are in this case, so that decision does not control our analysis here.24 In this case the Tribe argues that OCS was required to petition for Mira’s involuntary commitment under AS 47.30.

1985The Legislators would have us invoke the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine: “[Wjhere the matter is one of grave public concern and is recurrent but is capable of evading review, we have undertaken review even though the question may be technically moot.” Id.

1985The Legislators would have us invoke the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine: "[W]here the matter is one of grave public concern and is recurrent but is capable of evading review, we have undertaken review even though the question may be technically moot." Id.

2025“A claim is moot if it is no longer a present, live controversy, and the party bringing the action would not be entitled to relief, even if it prevails.”8 But under the “long recognized” public interest exception, a court may decide “issues whose importance and ability to evade review justify an immediate 6 Young v. State, 502 P.3d 964 , 969 (Alaska 2022). 7 See id. at 969-72 . 8 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1167 . -6- 2093 decision, despite technical mootness.”9 Courts weigh three factors when considering whether to apply the public interest exception: “1) whether the disputed is

2023Under these statutes, a fugitive from justice may be arrested and detained in Alaska based on information from the requisitioning state that the fugitive has been charged with 4 See Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Loc. 1324 v. Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1167 (Alaska 2002) (explaining that a claim is moot if it no longer presents a live controversy). 5 State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (holding that, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, a court may resolve an otherwise moot issue “when the issue is one of public interest which is capable of repetition

2025The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine considers “three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” 11 The State argues that Lila’s appeal fails to meet the first and third factors because the disputed issues are highly “fact bound and individualized” and do not raise “broadly applicable legal questions.” But Czech testi

2025The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine considers “three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” 11 The State argues that Lila’s appeal fails to meet the first and third factors because the disputed issues are highly “fact bound and individualized” and do not raise “broadly applicable legal questions.” But Czech testi

2023Under these statutes, a fugitive from justice may be arrested and detained in Alaska based on information from the requisitioning state that the fugitive has been charged with 4 See Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Loc. 1324 v. Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1167 (Alaska 2002) (explaining that a claim is moot if it no longer presents a live controversy). 5 State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (holding that, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, a court may resolve an otherwise moot issue “when the issue is one of public interest which is capable of repetition

2023Under these statutes, a fugitive from justice may be arrested and detained in Alaska based on information from the requisitioning state that the fugitive has been charged with 4 See Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Loc. 1324 v. Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1167 (Alaska 2002) (explaining that a claim is moot if it no longer presents a live controversy). 5 State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (holding that, under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, a court may resolve an otherwise moot issue “when the issue is one of public interest which is capable of repetition

2007As we stated in Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986, 990 (Alaska 1977) "The Gilbert public interest exception to Rule 82 is designed to encourage plaintiffs to bring issues of public interest to the courts." 64 .

1995Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986, 990 (Alaska 1977).

2001See id. at 1196 . [12] See Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793, 795 (Alaska 1977) ("[A] challenge to an item veto may not come within sufficient time to fully litigate the matter ...."). [13] Cf. Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998, 1001 (Miss.1995) ("[P]ublic policy and the magnitude of the importance of these issues require[ ] this Court to review the Governor's actions with respect to the ... appropriations bills as such actions may continue to be repeated and forever escape review...."). [14] See ch. 98, § 6, SLA 1997; ch. 100, §§ 47, 70, SLA 1997.

1999See Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793, 795 (Alaska 1977) (granting review under the public interest exception of whether the governor’s exercise of a line-item veto was constitutional, commenting that it "pits the political branches of our state government in a fundamental separation of powers confrontation”). 10 .

2025The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine considers “three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” 11 The State argues that Lila’s appeal fails to meet the first and third factors because the disputed issues are highly “fact bound and individualized” and do not raise “broadly applicable legal questions.” But Czech testi

2021In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 , 930 n.60 (Alaska 2019) (“[R]egardless of the type of involuntary admission or medication proceeding being challenged or the legal basis for appeal, the public interest exception authorizes us to consider any such appeal on the merits.”). 11 In re Hospitalization of Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 763-64 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007), overruled on other grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d at 936 ). -4- 1838 with the requirements of [the involuntary commitment statute],’ is a question of la

2023Appeal Attorney General Taylor appeals, asking us to reverse the superior court’s decision that his lawsuit was constitutionally barred, remand for further proceedings on the merits of his claim for declaratory relief under the public interest exception to mootness, and vacate the attorney’s fees award because the Legislative Affairs Agency would no longer be a prevailing party and he otherwise is entitled to protection under AS 09.60.010(c)(2).37 STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review summary judgment rulings de novo.”38 We apply our independent judgment to determine mootness “because, as a matter of

2022DISCUSSION The superior court may provide declaratory relief “[i]n case of an actual controversy.”16 This statutory phrase “encompasses considerations of standing, mootness, and ripeness.”17 Courts should therefore “decide cases only when a plaintiff 14 Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. Hartig, 321 P.3d 360, 366 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Ahtna Tene Nené v. State, Dep’t of Fish & Game, 288 P.3d 452, 457 (Alaska 2012)). 15 Id. at 367 (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska 1995)); see also Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n (ARBA), 33 P.3d 773, 778 (Alaska

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

2015Dakota concedes that his appeal is based on a claim of insufficient evidence and that the public interest exception to mootness does not apply. 9 . 273 P.3d 594, 598 (Alaska 2012). 10 .

1995The superior court concluded that SAC is not a public interest litigant and awarded $25,000 in attorney’s fees and $3,782 in costs to Lot 3 as the prevailing party pursuant to Civil Rule 82. 31 On appeal, SAC argues that the superior court erred in concluding that SAC is not a public interest litigant. 32 In Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Alaska 1974), this court recognized a public interest exception to Civil Rule 82 and held that “it is an abuse of discretion to award attorneys’ fees against a losing party who has in good faith raised a question of *782 genuine public interest before

1980The superior court held that the public interest exception of Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974), 2 precluded an assessment of attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 against the losing plaintiffs, Hickel and Merdes.

2025The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine considers “three factors: ‘(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” 11 The State argues that Lila’s appeal fails to meet the first and third factors because the disputed issues are highly “fact bound and individualized” and do not raise “broadly applicable legal questions.” But Czech testi

2024In recent years, we have considered a number of cases related to the detention of individuals who are court-ordered to be transported for evaluation of whether they meet civil commitment criteria.3 In two such matters, we determined that the nature and duration of the respondents’ pre-evaluation detention were not reasonably related to the purpose of facilitating immediate transportation for evaluation, and that those respondents’ pre-evaluation detention thus violated their substantive due process rights.4 In In re Hospitalization of Mabel B., we considered the pre-evaluation detention of bot

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

1989Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972).

1989Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972).

1982Doe v. State, 487 P.2d at 53-54 ; In re G.M.B., 483 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1971).

1982In G.M.B. the supreme court established the “two-pronged test” which must be met to invoke the public interest exception: “The dispute must be a recurring one, and its nature must be such that the mootness doctrine, if applied, would effectively remove from review the governmental action protested.” Id. at 1008 .

2025“A claim is moot if it is no longer a present, live controversy, and the party bringing the action would not be entitled to relief, even if it prevails.”8 But under the “long recognized” public interest exception, a court may decide “issues whose importance and ability to evade review justify an immediate 6 Young v. State, 502 P.3d 964 , 969 (Alaska 2022). 7 See id. at 969-72 . 8 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1167 . -6- 2093 decision, despite technical mootness.”9 Courts weigh three factors when considering whether to apply the public interest exception: “1) whether the disputed is

2025“A claim is moot if it is no longer a present, live controversy, and the party bringing the action would not be entitled to relief, even if it prevails.”8 But under the “long recognized” public interest exception, a court may decide “issues whose importance and ability to evade review justify an immediate 6 Young v. State, 502 P.3d 964 , 969 (Alaska 2022). 7 See id. at 969-72 . 8 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1167 . -6- 2093 decision, despite technical mootness.”9 Courts weigh three factors when considering whether to apply the public interest exception: “1) whether the disputed is

2022Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 204 P.3d at 368 ). 19 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, Local 1324 v. City of Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1167 (Alaska 2002). 20 Sitkans for Responsible Gov’t v. City & Borough of Sitka, 274 P.3d 486, 491 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n, 900 P.2d at 1195 ). 21 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1168 (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n, 900 P.2d at 1196 ). -9- 7582 review a moot question is left to the discretion of the court.”22 Courts first consider “whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition.”23 “[W]e have refused to ap

2022Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 204 P.3d 364, 368 (Alaska 2009)). -8- 7582 has standing to sue and the case is ripe and not moot.”18 A claim becomes moot when “it is no longer a present, live controversy.”19 “Mootness is particularly important in a case seeking a declaratory judgment,” such as this one, “because there is an added risk that the party is seeking an advisory opinion.”20 Young concedes that this case is moot, but he argues that two exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: the public interest exception and the voluntary cessation exception.

2021In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 , 930 n.60 (Alaska 2019) (“We hold today that regardless of the type of involuntary admission or medication proceeding being challenged or the legal basis for appeal, the public interest exception authorizes us to consider any such appeal on the merits.”); see also In re Hospitalization of Daniel G., 320 P.3d 262, 268 (Alaska 2014) (holding public interest exception to mootness applied to appeal of ex parte order authorizing up to 72 hours confinement for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to AS 47.30.715). 10 In re Hospitalization of Stephen O., 31

2019An otherwise moot claim may be considered under the public interest exception if: (1) "the disputed issues are capable of repetition"; (2) applying the mootness doctrine "may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented"; and (3) the issues "are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine." Heather R. , 366 P.3d at 532 (quoting Wetherhorn , 156 P.3d at 380 -81 ).

2021In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918 , 930 n.60 (Alaska 2019) (“We hold today that regardless of the type of involuntary admission or medication proceeding being challenged or the legal basis for appeal, the public interest exception authorizes us to consider any such appeal on the merits.”); see also In re Hospitalization of Daniel G., 320 P.3d 262, 268 (Alaska 2014) (holding public interest exception to mootness applied to appeal of ex parte order authorizing up to 72 hours confinement for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to AS 47.30.715). 10 In re Hospitalization of Stephen O., 31

2019Naomi argued that her case fell under both the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine9 and the 5 In re Jacob S., 384 P.3d at 763 -64 (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 375 (Alaska 2007)). 6 Id. at 764 (citing Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 375 ). 7 Id. (quoting Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 375 ). 8 156 P.3d at 380-81 (holding appeal of commitment order moot as 30-day commitment period had ended). 9 See In re Heather R., 366 P.3d 530, 532 (Alaska 2016) (applying public interest exception to reach merits of due process challenge to expired evaluation order); see also

2019For example, in Wetherhorn we concluded that the public interest exception did not apply because “Wetherhorn was committed based on a specific set of facts.”44 Similarly, in In re Reid K. we concluded that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge based on the 40 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 380 -81 (quoting Akpik v. State, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 536 (Alaska 2005)). 41 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Joan K., 273 P.3d at 608 (Stowers, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is practically impossible to perfect an appeal of an order that by its terms will expire in 30 days.”). 42 Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 3

2016See EP. v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 205 P.3d 1101, 1107 (Alaska 2009) (noting that matters of statutory interpretation do not depend on particular facts and are capable of repetition). 11 , Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 378 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 509 , 92 S.Ct. 1048 , 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972)). 12 , Our conclusion that the public interest exception applies to this appeal makes it unnecessary for us to address another of Mark's arguments: that the State's right to recover the costs of treatment under AS 47.30,910 is a collateral consequence that triggers ap

2019As we have applied it, the public interest exception depends on three factors: “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly 37 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (quoting State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 38 Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893, 901 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Thomas, 102 P.3d at 943 ). 39 354 P.3d at 1070 . -16- 7328 circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the pu

2019As we have applied it, the public interest exception depends on three factors: “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly 37 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska 2004) (quoting State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 38 Khan v. State, 278 P.3d 893, 901 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Thomas, 102 P.3d at 943 ). 39 354 P.3d at 1070 . -16- 7328 circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the pu

2013See Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012, 1018 (Alaska 2010) ("Even if claims are moot, a court may still hear them if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine."). 44 .

2012See Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012, 1019 (Alaska 2010) (comparing "the time it takes to bring the appeal with the time it takes for the appeal to become moot," and determining that the second prong of the public interest exception was not met because the time between the filing of a petition for incorporation and the incorporation election was not "insufficient to permit judicial review") (internal quotations and citations omitted). .

2023Council v. Knowles, 988 P.2d 604, 606 (Alaska 1999). 44 Id. (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2023Council v. Knowles, 988 P.2d 604, 606 (Alaska 1999). 44 Id. (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2017P’ship, 350 P.3d 273 , 279­ 82 (Alaska 2015) (discussing the public interest exception and the legislature’s abrogation).

2017P’ship, 350 P.3d 273, 279-82 (Alaska 2015) (discussing the public interest exception and the legislature’s abrogation).