mootness doctrine 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

1991We find the circumstances of this case to fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases "where the matter is one of grave public concern and is recurrent but is capable of evading review." Doe, 487 P.2d at 53 .

1991We find the circumstances of this case to fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases "where the matter is one of grave public concern and is recurrent but is capable of evading review.” Doe, 487 P.2d at 53 .

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

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 ).

2025Applying the three-factor test from Fairbanks Fire Fighters Association, Local 1324 v. City of Fairbanks,5 it first found that the factual circumstances of the tetanus shot given to her daughter were “unlikely 5 48 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Alaska 2002) (“[W]e consider . . . ‘(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.’ ” (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors A

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

2025Applying the three-factor test from Fairbanks Fire Fighters Association, Local 1324 v. City of Fairbanks,5 it first found that the factual circumstances of the tetanus shot given to her daughter were “unlikely 5 48 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Alaska 2002) (“[W]e consider . . . ‘(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.’ ” (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors A

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

2023“Even when a case is moot, we may address certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.”58 Under the public interest exception, we consider “(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 55 Alaska Trademark Shellfish, LLC v. State, 91 P.3d 953, 957 (Alaska 2004). 56 Sagoonick, 503 P.3d at 803 . 57 See id. at 796 ; AS 16.05.258; AS 16.05.020. 58 Akpik v. State, 115 P.3d 532,

2023Advoc., 514 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Alaska 2022) (“[W]e may address certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” (quoting Akpik v. State, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 115 P.3d 532, 535 (Alaska 2005))). -7- 7641 appropriate.” 18 The public interest exception to mootness requires that we consider 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 ju

1982In a long line of cases, we have recognized that certain disputes, though arguably moot in a technical sense, merit review under the “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. 3 We reiterated in Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793 (Alaska *458 1977), the guidelines used to ascertain whether a question normally considered moot nonetheless merits adjudication: “To invoke the [public interest] exception, a two pronged test must be met: The dispute must be a recurring one, and its nature must be such that the mootness doctrine, if applied, would effectively [preclude review of the issue].” 56

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 .

2023We may exercise discretion to hear a moot appeal under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine after considering: “(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.” Id. -19- 7643 superior court’s discretionary decision to combine stages of this particular CINA proceeding, which necessarily is based on the specific facts of this case and Bi

2023We may exercise discretion to hear a moot appeal under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine after considering: “(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.” Id. -19- 7643 superior court’s discretionary decision to combine stages of this particular CINA proceeding, which necessarily is based on the specific facts of this case and Bi

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

2019We consolidated the two cases on appeal and asked all parties for supplemental briefing on whether — and if so, how — we should revisit our case law on moot involuntary commitment and medication appeals. 9 (...continued) 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 ). 10 See In re Joan K., 273 P.3d 594, 597-98 (Alaska 2012) (“[T]he collateral consequences doctrine ‘allows courts to decide otherwise-moot ca

2019Our 2012 opinion in In re Joan K. departed from the strict holding of Wetherhorn and adopted a “collateral consequences exception” to the mootness doctrine in involuntary commitment appeals.17 The appellant in that case noted that several other jurisdictions had applied the collateral consequences exception to involuntary commitment appeals on the basis of, for example, “social stigma, adverse employment restrictions, application in future legal proceedings, and restrictions on the right to possess firearms.”18 We concluded “that there are sufficient general collateral consequences, without th

2019See In re Hospitalization of Tracy C., 249 P.3d 1085, 1090 (Alaska 2011) (“Whether the public interest exception [to the mootness doctrine] applies 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 circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.’ ” (quoting Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 380-81 (Alaska 2007))). 19 Estrada v. State, 362 P.3d 1021, 1023 (

2019E.P. , 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Tracy C. , 249 P.3d at 1094 ("[T]he public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies because Tracy presents a question of statutory interpretation that is capable of repetition."). 156 P.3d at 381. 357 P.3d 776 , 781 (Alaska 2015). 205 P.3d at 1107 .

2022The second factor is “whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues.”26 The context of the issue here — a court-approved stipulation regarding an election — facilitates judicial review: the action 22 Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n (ARBA), 33 P.3d 773, 778 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n, 900 P.2d at 1196 ). 23 Id. at 777-78. 24 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1168 . 25 O’Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996). 26 Ulmer, 33 P.3d at 778 . -10- 7582 is taken publicly and on the record, and a judge

2022The second factor is “whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues.”26 The context of the issue here — a court-approved stipulation regarding an election — facilitates judicial review: the action 22 Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass’n (ARBA), 33 P.3d 773, 778 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass’n, 900 P.2d at 1196 ). 23 Id. at 777-78. 24 Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass’n, 48 P.3d at 1168 . 25 O’Callaghan v. State, 920 P.2d 1387, 1388 (Alaska 1996). 26 Ulmer, 33 P.3d at 778 . -10- 7582 is taken publicly and on the record, and a judge

2011Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska (citing Peloza v. Freas, 871 P.2d 687, 688 (Alaska 1994); Brandon v. Dep't of Corr., 865 P.2d 87 , 92 n. 6 (Alaska 1993)). 13 .

1996Peloza v. Freas, 871 P.2d 687, 688 (Alaska 1994).

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

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

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

1995In Peninsula Marketing Ass'n v. State, 817 P.2d 917 (Alaska 1991), we discussed the application of the mootness doctrine to disputes about the False Pass fishery.

1995Ass'n v. State, 817 P.2d 917, 920 (Alaska 1991).

1991We have long held, however, that the mootness doctrine in Alaska "is a matter of judicial policy, not constitutional law." R.L.R. v. State, 487 P.2d 27, 45 (Alaska 1971).

1991We have long held, however, that the mootness doctrine in Alaska "is a matter of judicial policy, not constitutional law." R.L.R. v. State, 487 P.2d 27, 45 (Alaska 1971).

1982In a long line of cases, we have recognized that certain disputes, though arguably moot in a technical sense, merit review under the “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. 3 We reiterated in Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793 (Alaska *458 1977), the guidelines used to ascertain whether a question normally considered moot nonetheless merits adjudication: “To invoke the [public interest] exception, a two pronged test must be met: The dispute must be a recurring one, and its nature must be such that the mootness doctrine, if applied, would effectively [preclude review of the issue].” 56

1982In a long line of cases, we have recognized that certain disputes, though arguably moot in a technical sense, merit review under the “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. 3 We reiterated in Thomas v. Rosen, 569 P.2d 793 (Alaska *458 1977), the guidelines used to ascertain whether a question normally considered moot nonetheless merits adjudication: “To invoke the [public interest] exception, a two pronged test must be met: The dispute must be a recurring one, and its nature must be such that the mootness doctrine, if applied, would effectively [preclude review of the issue].” 56

1977Nevertheless, we will address their contentions as though they were not moot, under the recognized exception to the mootness doctrine for cases “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310, 316 (1911); see e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 333 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 995 , 998 n. 2, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 279 n. 2 (1972); Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 53-54 (Alaska 1971).

1977Nevertheless, we will address their contentions as though they were not moot, under the recognized exception to the mootness doctrine for cases “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310, 316 (1911); see e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 333 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 995 , 998 n. 2, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 , 279 n. 2 (1972); Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 53-54 (Alaska 1971).

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

2019See In re Hospitalization of Naomi B., 435 P.3d 918, 927 (Alaska 2019). 3 In re Hospitalization of Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 768 (Alaska 2016). 4 In re Hospitalization of Mark V., 375 P.3d 51, 59 (Alaska 2016), overruled on other grounds by In re Naomi B., 435 P.3d at 924-31 . -4- 1743 (A) are no more harsh, hazardous, or intrusive than necessary to achieve the treatment objectives of the patient; and (B) involve no restrictions on physical movement nor supervised residence or inpatient care except as reasonably necessary for the administration of treatment or the protection of the patient or ot

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

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

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

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.

2022Ultimately, the determination of whether to 18 Id. at 1176 (quoting Am.

2019Our 2012 opinion in In re Joan K. departed from the strict holding of Wetherhorn and adopted a “collateral consequences exception” to the mootness doctrine in involuntary commitment appeals.17 The appellant in that case noted that several other jurisdictions had applied the collateral consequences exception to involuntary commitment appeals on the basis of, for example, “social stigma, adverse employment restrictions, application in future legal proceedings, and restrictions on the right to possess firearms.”18 We concluded “that there are sufficient general collateral consequences, without th

2019Our 2012 opinion in In re Joan K. departed from the strict holding of Wetherhorn and adopted a “collateral consequences exception” to the mootness doctrine in involuntary commitment appeals.17 The appellant in that case noted that several other jurisdictions had applied the collateral consequences exception to involuntary commitment appeals on the basis of, for example, “social stigma, adverse employment restrictions, application in future legal proceedings, and restrictions on the right to possess firearms.”18 We concluded “that there are sufficient general collateral consequences, without th

2019E.P. , 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Tracy C. , 249 P.3d at 1094 ("[T]he public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies because Tracy presents a question of statutory interpretation that is capable of repetition."). 156 P.3d at 381. 357 P.3d 776 , 781 (Alaska 2015). 205 P.3d at 1107 .

2019E.P. , 205 P.3d at 1107 ; see also Tracy C. , 249 P.3d at 1094 ("[T]he public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies because Tracy presents a question of statutory interpretation that is capable of repetition."). 156 P.3d at 381. 357 P.3d 776 , 781 (Alaska 2015). 205 P.3d at 1107 .

1990See Rutter v. State, 668 P.2d 1343, 1346 (Alaska 1983).

1988See Rutter, 668 P.2d at 1346 .

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

2022Council, 988 P.2d at 605 . 35 433 P.3d 1056, 1063 (Alaska 2018) (“Reviewing [plaintiff]’s constitutional challenges to the Proposed Initiative to avoid litigating similar initiatives is not so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine, because those unknown initiatives simply are not before us.”). -13- 7582 B.

2019We consolidated the two cases on appeal and asked all parties for supplemental briefing on whether — and if so, how — we should revisit our case law on moot involuntary commitment and medication appeals. 9 (...continued) 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 ). 10 See In re Joan K., 273 P.3d 594, 597-98 (Alaska 2012) (“[T]he collateral consequences doctrine ‘allows courts to decide otherwise-moot ca

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 ).