capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception in Nevada

2017"Even when an appeal is moot, however, [this court] may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id.; see also Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is "relatively short term" and there is a "likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future").

2017"Even when an appeal is moot, however, [this court] may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id.; see also Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is "relatively short term" and there is a "likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future").

2014(TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344 , 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14 , 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks SUPREME COURT OF N

2014(TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344 , 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14 , 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks SUPREME COURT OF N

2025Though the Coalition sought contemporaneous access to those proceedings, "Rifle public's right of access extends beyond simply the ability to attend open court proceedings" and encompasses "a pervasive common law right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents." In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grae v. Corr.

2025Though the Coalition sought contemporaneous access to those proceedings, “[t]he public’s right of access extends beyond simply the ability to attend open court proceedings” and encompasses “a pervasive common law right to inspect and copy ... judicial records and documents.” in re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grae vu.

2020United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, U.S. „ 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1540 (2018) (emphasis added).

2020United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, U.S. „ 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1540 (2018) (emphasis added).

2019Id. (explaining that the exception applies when an important issue pertaining to challenged action that takes place within a relatively short timeframe, not unique to the parties, is likely to arise again in the future).

2018Id. at 602 , 245 P.3d at 574 ("Even when an appeal is moot. . . we may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review.").

2024Ct., 125 Nev. 849, 858 , 221 P.3d 1240, 1246 (2009) (providing that a petition for extraordinary writ relief was appropriate 5 Both Falconi and real parties in interest agree that this issue is not moot even though the hearing to which Falconi sought access has already occurred because the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

2024Ct., 125 Nev. 849, 858 , 221 P.3d 1240, 1246 (2009) (providing that a petition for extraordinary writ relief was appropriate 5 Both Falconi and real parties in interest agree that this issue is not moot even though the hearing to which Falconi sought access has already occurred because the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

2020Id.; see In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161 , 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (deciding an otherwise moot matter based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that applies the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine only in exceptional cases where the challenged action is "too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration," and a reasonable expectation exists "that the same complaining party will suffer the harm again").

2020Id.; see In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161 , 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (deciding an otherwise moot matter based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that applies the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine only in exceptional cases where the challenged action is "too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration," and a reasonable expectation exists "that the same complaining party will suffer the harm again").

2014(TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344 , 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14 , 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks SUPREME COURT OF N

2014(TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344 , 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14 , 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks SUPREME COURT OF N

2014(TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344 , 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14 , 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks SUPREME COURT OF N

2010Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 120 Nev. 168, 171-72 , 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004) (recognizing that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine applies when the duration of the challenged action is “relatively short” and there is a “likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future” (citing Binegar v. District Court, 112 Nev. 544, 548 , 915 P.2d 889, 892 (1996) (noting that the matter must be important), and Langston, 110 Nev. at 344 , 871 P.2d at 363 (pointing out that facts unique to a particular party will not give rise to the mootness exc