mootness doctrine in Idaho

2025Even where a question is moot, there are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8 , 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010).

2025Even where a question is moot, there are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8 , 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010).

2025There are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” AmeriTel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851-52 , 119 P.3d 624, 626-27 (2005).

2025There are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” AmeriTel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851-52 , 119 P.3d 624, 626-27 (2005).

2024However, an appeal may survive even if it is moot so long as it falls within one of three recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” Koch v. Canyon County, 145 Idaho 158, 163 , 177 P.3d 372, 377 (2008) (quoting AmeriTel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849 , 851–52, 119 P.3d

2024However, an appeal may survive even if it is moot so long as it falls within one of three recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest.” Koch v. Canyon County, 145 Idaho 158, 163 , 177 P.3d 372, 377 (2008) (quoting AmeriTel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849 , 851–52, 119 P.3d

2018See Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983) (holding that absent the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, pretrial detainees would not be afforded appellate review because detention for pretrial detainees averaged six to eight months). 2 violated the terms of probation, the second question is what should be the consequences of that violation.

2018See Mallery v. Lewis, 106 Idaho 227, 234 , 678 P.2d 19, 26 (1983) (holding that absent the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, pretrial detainees would not be afforded appellate review because detention for pretrial detainees averaged six to eight months). 2 violated the terms of probation, the second question is what should be the consequences of that violation.

2025Bradshaw, 120 Idaho at 432 , 816 P.2d at 989 .

2025Bradshaw, 120 Idaho at 432 , 816 P.2d at 989 .

1999Moreover, this issue is justified under the "public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine because disputes involving warehouseman’s liens are "susceptible to repetition yet avoid[] review.” See Great Beginnings Child Care, Inc. v. Office of the Governor, 128 Idaho 158, 160 , 911 P.2d 751, 753 (1996).

1999Moreover, this issue is justified under the "public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine because disputes involving warehouseman’s liens are "susceptible to repetition yet avoid[] review.” See Great Beginnings Child Care, Inc. v. Office of the Governor, 128 Idaho 158, 160 , 911 P.2d 751, 753 (1996).

1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci

1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci

2017Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432 , 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991)).

2004Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982); Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432 , 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991).

2024See Freeman v. Idaho Dep't of Correction, 138 Idaho 872 , 71 P.3d 471 (Ct. App. 2003) (an otherwise moot issue remains justiciable if it falls within one of three recognized exceptions to the application of mootness doctrine: first, a mootness exception applies where the challenged conduct persists in causing collateral legal consequences for the challenger; second, an exception exists where the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and third, an exception applies where an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest). 5

2024See Freeman v. Idaho Dep't of Correction, 138 Idaho 872 , 71 P.3d 471 (Ct. App. 2003) (an otherwise moot issue remains justiciable if it falls within one of three recognized exceptions to the application of mootness doctrine: first, a mootness exception applies where the challenged conduct persists in causing collateral legal consequences for the challenger; second, an exception exists where the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and third, an exception applies where an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest). 5

2023Under the mootness doctrine, this Court will not consider issues “when the issues presented are no longer live, the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, or a judicial determination will have no practical effect upon the outcome.” Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103 , 107- 08, 244 P.3d 247, 251-52 (Ct. App. 2010).

2023Under the mootness doctrine, this Court will not consider issues “when the issues presented are no longer live, the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, or a judicial determination will have no practical effect upon the outcome.” Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 150 Idaho 103 , 107- 08, 244 P.3d 247, 251-52 (Ct. App. 2010).

2021However, we hold that Parents’ claim falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine because, with regard to the educational claim, “the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition.” Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., 150 Idaho 521, 528 , 248 P.3d 1256, 1263 (2011).

2021However, we hold that Parents’ claim falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine because, with regard to the educational claim, “the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition.” Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., 150 Idaho 521, 528 , 248 P.3d 1256, 1263 (2011).

2014See Doe II v. Doe III, 145 Idaho 337, 340 , 179 P.3d 300, 303 (2008) (applying the mootness doctrine and concluding that a challenge to a district court’s denial of the grandparents’ action seeking custody of the grandchild was moot because the grandparents were subsequently awarded guardianship over the grandchild).

2014See Doe II v. Doe III, 145 Idaho 337, 340 , 179 P.3d 300, 303 (2008) (applying the mootness doctrine and concluding that a challenge to a district court’s denial of the grandparents’ action seeking custody of the grandchild was moot because the grandparents were subsequently awarded guardianship over the grandchild).

2013Registration Sys., Inc., 154 Idaho 511, 515 , 300 P.3d 43, 47 (2013), we explained the doctrine of mootness: “An issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief.” Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851 , 119 P.3d 624, 626 (2005).

2013Registration Sys., Inc., 154 Idaho 511, 515 , 300 P.3d 43, 47 (2013), we explained the doctrine of mootness: “An issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief.” Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851 , 119 P.3d 624, 626 (2005).

2005One exception to the application of the mootness doctrine occurs “when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the challenger.” Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227 , 91 P.3d at 1131 (citing Butler v. State, 129 Idaho 899, 901 , 935 P.2d 162, 164 (1997)).

2005One exception to the application of the mootness doctrine occurs “when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the challenger.” Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227 , 91 P.3d at 1131 (citing Butler v. State, 129 Idaho 899, 901 , 935 P.2d 162, 164 (1997)).

2003Butler v. State, 129 Idaho 899, 900-01 , 935 P.2d 162, 163-64 (1997); State v. Alldredge, 96 Idaho 7, 8 , 523 P.2d 824, 825 (1974); Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 1035 , 772 P.2d 241, 242 (Ct.App.1989); Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 181, 183 , 722 P.2d 490, 492 (Ct.App.1986).

2003Butler v. State, 129 Idaho 899, 900-01 , 935 P.2d 162, 163-64 (1997); State v. Alldredge, 96 Idaho 7, 8 , 523 P.2d 824, 825 (1974); Adams v. Killeen, 115 Idaho 1034, 1035 , 772 P.2d 241, 242 (Ct.App.1989); Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 181, 183 , 722 P.2d 490, 492 (Ct.App.1986).

1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci

1987However, one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine has been succinctly stated as follows: If the alleged constitutional violation is likely to be repeated, and the duration of the violation to any one individual’s rights is predictably less than the time ordinarily required to obtain a hearing on the issue, and the alleged violation is of strong public interest, then the mootness doctrine will not apply. [Citations omitted.] Russell v. Fortney, 111 Idaho 179, 180 , 722 P.2d 488, 489 (1986) (opinion by Huntley, J., dissenting from order denying petition for review of Court of Appeals’ deci

1986Wickham v. Fisher, supra. See Mahaffey v. State, supra. In the case at bar, we do not find a sufficient public interest at stake to disregard the mootness doctrine.

1986In contrast, I think another Utah case, Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896 (Utah 1981), is factually analogous to the instant case.

2026“Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability standard.” ABC Agra, LLC v. Critical Access Grp., Inc., 156 Idaho 781, 783 , 331 P.3d 523, 525 (2014) (citing Davidson v. Wright, 143 Idaho 616, 620 , 151 P.3d 812, 816 (2006)).

2026“Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability standard.” ABC Agra, LLC v. Critical Access Grp., Inc., 156 Idaho 781, 783 , 331 P.3d 523, 525 (2014) (citing Davidson v. Wright, 143 Idaho 616, 620 , 151 P.3d 812, 816 (2006)).

2026And “[w]hen conducting a mootness analysis, a court must not ‘confuse[] mootness with the merits.” Dierlam v. Trump, 977 F.3d 471, 477 (5th Cir. 2020) (second alteration in original) (quoting Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 174 , (2013)).

2026“Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability standard.” ABC Agra, LLC v. Critical Access Grp., Inc., 156 Idaho 781, 783 , 331 P.3d 523, 525 (2014) (citing Davidson v. Wright, 143 Idaho 616, 620 , 151 P.3d 812, 816 (2006)).

2026“Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability standard.” ABC Agra, LLC v. Critical Access Grp., Inc., 156 Idaho 781, 783 , 331 P.3d 523, 525 (2014) (citing Davidson v. Wright, 143 Idaho 616, 620 , 151 P.3d 812, 816 (2006)).

2024See N.F. v. G.F., 316 P.3d 944, 947 (Utah Ct. App. 2013).

2024See id. at 946 .

2024In Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6, 11, 12 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit determined that a challenge to school closure orders issued during the pandemic was moot and did not fall under the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine.

2024In Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6, 11, 12 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit determined that a challenge to school closure orders issued during the pandemic was moot and did not fall under the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine.

2024Ellibee v. Ellibee, 121 Idaho 501, 503 , 826 P.2d 462, 464 (1992) (citations omitted).

2024Ellibee v. Ellibee, 121 Idaho 501, 503 , 826 P.2d 462, 464 (1992) (citations omitted).

2021The mootness doctrine applies when “a favorable judicial 22 decision would not result in any relief.” Fenn v. Noah, 142 Idaho 775, 779 , 133 P.3d 1240, 1244 (2006).

2021The mootness doctrine applies when “a favorable judicial 22 decision would not result in any relief.” Fenn v. Noah, 142 Idaho 775, 779 , 133 P.3d 1240, 1244 (2006).

2016Opp. v. Idaho State Bd. of Educ., 128 Idaho 276, 281 , 912 P.2d 644, 649 (1996) (quoting Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432 , 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991)).

2016Opp. v. Idaho State Bd. of Educ., 128 Idaho 276, 281 , 912 P.2d 644, 649 (1996) (quoting Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432 , 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991)).