mootness doctrine in Missouri

2025We have authority to review this case because Section 455.0072 provides that “the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” Id.

2025Because the judgment does not specify on which grounds the order of protection was granted, Husband challenges all potential grounds for the judgment except sexual 2 Although the full order of protection expired during the pendency of this appeal, we apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine to hear the appeal pursuant to § 455.007, which provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See L.E.C. v. K.R.C., 674 S.W.3d 97 ,

2020In M.T., the Eastern District of this Court purported to recognize a third exception to the mootness doctrine that allows a court to review an otherwise moot appeal "if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties." M.T., 431 S.W.3d at 543 , (citing Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)).

2015Mother argues that a third exception to the mootness doctrine is recognized which “allows courts to proceed with [a moot] appeal if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties.” M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Mo.App.E.D.2014) (citing Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo.App.S.D.2007)).

2015See, e.g., T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 ("The first [exception to the mootness doctrine] applies to a case that becomes moot after argument and submission.") (emphasis added); Kinsky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194, 196 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ("First, if a case becomes moot after argument and submission, then dismissal is within the discretion of the court.”) (emphasis added); Cross, 815 S.W.2d at 66 ("If a case becomes moot after submission and argument, then dismissal for mootness is discretionary.”) (emphasis added); State v. Eyberg, 671 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984) ("[Dismissal of an appeal is

2008A second exception to the mootness doctrine (also narrow and discretionary) exists where "a case becomes moot after argument and submission.” Kinsky, 109 S.W.3d at 196 ; Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.

2025Because the judgment does not specify on which grounds the order of protection was granted, Husband challenges all potential grounds for the judgment except sexual 2 Although the full order of protection expired during the pendency of this appeal, we apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine to hear the appeal pursuant to § 455.007, which provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See L.E.C. v. K.R.C., 674 S.W.3d 97 ,

2021As with Chapline’s first point, we will, nonetheless, review this point ex gratia. 6 However, even if the February 24, 2021 renewal had not occurred, we would still review the merits of Chapline’s appeal pursuant to section 455.007, which provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though t

2020Id. at 542-43 .

2010The mootness doctrine is triggered when some event “ ‘so alters the position of the parties that any judgment rendered [merely becomes] a hypothetical opinion.’ ” Reed, 41 S.W.3d at 473 (alteration in original) (quoting Armstrong, 990 S.W.2d at 64 ).

2015See, e.g., T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 ("The first [exception to the mootness doctrine] applies to a case that becomes moot after argument and submission.") (emphasis added); Kinsky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194, 196 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ("First, if a case becomes moot after argument and submission, then dismissal is within the discretion of the court.”) (emphasis added); Cross, 815 S.W.2d at 66 ("If a case becomes moot after submission and argument, then dismissal for mootness is discretionary.”) (emphasis added); State v. Eyberg, 671 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984) ("[Dismissal of an appeal is

2008A second exception to the mootness doctrine (also narrow and discretionary) exists where "a case becomes moot after argument and submission.” Kinsky, 109 S.W.3d at 196 ; Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.

2020In M.T., the Eastern District of this Court purported to recognize a third exception to the mootness doctrine that allows a court to review an otherwise moot appeal "if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties." M.T., 431 S.W.3d at 543 , (citing Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)).

2017There is some question as to whether there is a third exception to the mootness doctrine, which "allows courts to proceed with the appeal if the decision could have significant collateral consequences for one or more of the parties.” M.T. v. Juvenile Officer, 431 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).

2020Peters-Baker v. Round, 561 S.W.3d 380, 384-85 (Mo. banc 2018) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine has been recognized “when the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review”).

2020Peters-Baker v. Round, 561 S.W.3d 380, 384-85 (Mo. banc 2018) (explaining an exception to the mootness doctrine has been recognized “when the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review”).

2017“If an exception to the mootness doctrine applies, dismissal becomes discretionary.” Id.

2017See In re J.T.S., 462 S.W.3d at 481 (finding that in arguing for the application of an exception to the mootness doctrine, “[mjother’s bare, speculative assertions” were not persuasive); see also J.L.R., 257 S.W.3d at 166 (finding mother’s assertion that the trial court’s finding had the potential to harm her employment opportunities to be “mere speculation” and that mother cited “no facts to support this contention”).

2023Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).3 But those 3 In re S.B.A., 530 S.W.3d 615, 621-22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine because there was a movement to make more juvenile 6 cases are factually distinguishable from A.B.W.’s case, in a critical way, in that the juveniles were challenging the initial adjudication of delinquency.

2019See In re S.B.A. , 530 S.W.3d 615 , 621-22 (Mo. App. 2017) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine because there was a movement to make more juvenile records public and the record could have "other lifelong consequences and stigma"); In re N.R.W. , 482 S.W.3d 473 , 475 (Mo. App. 2016) (finding appeal was not moot when juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would have been considered a felony if committed by an adult); T.S.G. v. Juvenile Officer , 322 S.W.3d 145 , 148 (Mo. App. 2010) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine where juvenile was initially adjudged to

2023Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).3 But those 3 In re S.B.A., 530 S.W.3d 615, 621-22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine because there was a movement to make more juvenile 6 cases are factually distinguishable from A.B.W.’s case, in a critical way, in that the juveniles were challenging the initial adjudication of delinquency.

2023Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine where juvenile was initially adjudged to have committed sexual misconduct because of the “movement to make more juvenile records public”).

2025Under this “narrow” exception, an appellate court “can exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits if . . . the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review.” D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 780-81 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023K.L.M.’s appeal is moot.1 If an appeal is moot, we can exercise our discretion to decide the case on its merits “if one of two narrow exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist: ‘(1) when a case becomes moot after submission and argument; and (2) when the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review.’” D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 780-81 (citations 1 K.L.M. does not challenge her adjudication of delinquency, which distinguishes this case from D.C.M.

2023We declined to expand this new exception beyond juvenile adjudications of delinquency “[w]ithout a clear pronouncement from the Supreme Court that it intends to more broadly create an exception to the mootness doctrine for all cases involving collateral consequences[.]” Id. records public, and the record could have “other lifelong consequences and stigma”); In re N.R.W., 482 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (finding appeal was not moot when juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would have been considered a felony if committed by an adult); T.S.G. v. Juv.

2019See In re S.B.A. , 530 S.W.3d 615 , 621-22 (Mo. App. 2017) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine because there was a movement to make more juvenile records public and the record could have "other lifelong consequences and stigma"); In re N.R.W. , 482 S.W.3d 473 , 475 (Mo. App. 2016) (finding appeal was not moot when juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would have been considered a felony if committed by an adult); T.S.G. v. Juvenile Officer , 322 S.W.3d 145 , 148 (Mo. App. 2010) (finding an exception to the mootness doctrine where juvenile was initially adjudged to

2010The mootness doctrine is triggered when some event “ ‘so alters the position of the parties that any judgment rendered [merely becomes] a hypothetical opinion.’ ” Reed, 41 S.W.3d at 473 (alteration in original) (quoting Armstrong, 990 S.W.2d at 64 ).

2003The doctrine is triggered when some event “so alters the position of the parties that any judgment rendered [merely becomes] a hypothetical opinion.” Id. (bracketed language in original). *135 Even in circumstances where an individual party’s claims have become moot, however, an appellate court may still reach the merits of the claim if the mooted claim is capable of repetition, yet will continue to evade review due to the mootness doctrine.

2017For the reasons discussed below, we recognize and apply the third exception to the mootness doctrine in the instant case, which has been previously recognized and applied in multiple cases before this Court and the Western District, See In Interest of N.R.W., 482 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (recognizing and explicitly applying the exception); M.T., 431 S.W.3d at 543 (recognizing the exception); A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d at 108 (same); Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Kansas City, 330 S.W.3d 767 , 771 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (same); T.S.G. v. Juvenile Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 201

2017For the reasons discussed below, we recognize and apply the third exception to the mootness doctrine in the instant case, which has been previously recognized and applied in multiple cases before this Court and the Western District, See In Interest of N.R.W., 482 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (recognizing and explicitly applying the exception); M.T., 431 S.W.3d at 543 (recognizing the exception); A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d at 108 (same); Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Kansas City, 330 S.W.3d 767 , 771 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (same); T.S.G. v. Juvenile Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 201

2022See City of Manchester v. Ryan, 180 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005).

2010The “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine applies if a case presents an issue that “(1) is of general public interest and importance, (2) will recur, and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies.” City of Manchester v. Ryan, 180 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo.App.2005).

2022Reser v. Rush, 562 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Mo. banc 1978) (“The problem presented is one which is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ and needs to be resolved and put to rest.

2022Reser v. Rush, 562 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Mo. banc 1978) (“The problem presented is one which is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ and needs to be resolved and put to rest.

2020Grzybinski v. 9 Dir. of Revenue, 479 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

2019Nonetheless, an exception to the mootness rule applies when a case presents an issue that: (1) is of general public interest and importance, (2) will recur, and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies, Grzybinski v. Dir. of Revenue, 479 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

2019T.D.H. v. O’Connell, 258 S.W.3d 850, 851 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).

2015See, e.g., T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 ("The first [exception to the mootness doctrine] applies to a case that becomes moot after argument and submission.") (emphasis added); Kinsky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194, 196 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ("First, if a case becomes moot after argument and submission, then dismissal is within the discretion of the court.”) (emphasis added); Cross, 815 S.W.2d at 66 ("If a case becomes moot after submission and argument, then dismissal for mootness is discretionary.”) (emphasis added); State v. Eyberg, 671 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984) ("[Dismissal of an appeal is

2017See In re J.T.S., 462 S.W.3d at 481 (finding that in arguing for the application of an exception to the mootness doctrine, “[mjother’s bare, speculative assertions” were not persuasive); see also J.L.R., 257 S.W.3d at 166 (finding mother’s assertion that the trial court’s finding had the potential to harm her employment opportunities to be “mere speculation” and that mother cited “no facts to support this contention”).

2017See id. at 165-66 .

2015See, e.g., T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 ("The first [exception to the mootness doctrine] applies to a case that becomes moot after argument and submission.") (emphasis added); Kinsky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194, 196 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ("First, if a case becomes moot after argument and submission, then dismissal is within the discretion of the court.”) (emphasis added); Cross, 815 S.W.2d at 66 ("If a case becomes moot after submission and argument, then dismissal for mootness is discretionary.”) (emphasis added); State v. Eyberg, 671 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984) ("[Dismissal of an appeal is

1991State v. Eyberg, 671 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Mo.App., S.D.1984); and 2) If a case presents an issue which: (a) is of general public interest and importance; (b) will evade appellate review unless the court exercises its special jurisdiction; and (c) will recur, then dismissal for mootness is discretionary.

2014Mo. Public Defender Com’n v. Waters, 370 S.W.3d 592, 603 (Mo. banc 2012) (quotation omitted).

2014Mo. Public Defender Com’n v. Waters, 370 S.W.3d 592, 603 (Mo. banc 2012) (quotation omitted).

2014Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001) (quoting Armstrong v. Elmore, 990 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Mo.App.W.D.1999)). “ ‘[A] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.’ ” Reed, 41 S.W.3d at 473 (quoting Shelton v. Farr, 996 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Mo.App.W.D.1999)). “ ‘When an event occurs that makes a court’s decision unnecessary or makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible, the case is moot and generally should be dismis

2014Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001) (quoting Armstrong v. Elmore, 990 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Mo.App.W.D.1999)). “ ‘[A] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.’ ” Reed, 41 S.W.3d at 473 (quoting Shelton v. Farr, 996 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Mo.App.W.D.1999)). “ ‘When an event occurs that makes a court’s decision unnecessary or makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible, the case is moot and generally should be dismis

2019Comm'n, 917 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Mo. App. 1996). 7 There are two narrow exceptions to the mootness doctrine which allow an appellate court to exercise its discretion to consider an appeal.

2017Id.

2018Donnell v. Searcy , 347 Mo. 1052 , 152 S.W.2d 8 , 10 (Mo. banc 1941) ; and (2) when the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review, Gurley v. Mo. Bd. of Private Investigator Examiners , 361 S.W.3d 406 , 414 (Mo. banc 2012).

2012In Gurley , this Court recognized the “public interest” exception to the doctrine of mootness. 361 S.W.3d at 414 .

2017On appeal, we concluded that; based on an exception to the mootness doctrine, the Joplin district’s rate design in the 2000 rate case was not moot and remanded to the Commission to make findings of fact and conclusion of law “that will allow the courts to determine whether the rates were unduly prejudicial under section 393.130.3.” Id. at 296, 300 .

2013“Invocation of [an] exception to the mootness doctrine is within this [c]ourt’s discretion when it is demonstrated that the case in question presents an issue that[:] (1) is of general public interest; (2) will recur; and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies.” Id. at 334-35 .

2016Brown v. *197 City of Lee’s Summit, 277 S.W.3d 740, 745 (Mo.App.W.D.2008).

2010Invocation of this exception to the mootness doctrine is within this Court’s discretion when it is demonstrated that the case in question “presents an is *335 sue that (1) is of general public interest; (2) will recur; and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2016AG Processing, Inc., 276 S.W.3d 303, 306 (Mo.App.

2008Ag Processing, Inc., 276 S.W.3d at 306 (quoting Mo. Cable Television Ass’n v. Mo. Pub.