mootness doctrine in Texas

2015The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” F.D.I.C. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994) (citing Camarena v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.1988)).

2015The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” F.D.I.C. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994) (citing Camarena v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.1988)).

2026Like the United States Supreme Court, see Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975), and our sister Court, see General Land Office of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990), we have recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d at 119 .

2024Land Off. of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990) (stating that courts have no jurisdiction to decide the merits of a moot case absent an exception to the mootness doctrine). -4- 04-22-00600-CR Because our review of the entire record establishes that the trial court did not rule on the merits of Leija’s habeas application, we lack jurisdiction to review his appeal.

2023See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983) (“[T]he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”); Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289 , 290–91 (Tex. 2011) (“‘Capable of repetition yet evading review’ is a rare exception to the mootness doctrine.” (quoting Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001))).

2021See Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (concluding that speculation of future unlawful conduct could not support application of a mootness exception).

2025Mootness and Subject Matter Jurisdiction “The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting FDIC v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994)).

2023“The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” F.D.I.C. v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994).

2023See, e.g., State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1980) (applying the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving involuntary commitment to a mental hospital); 8 Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612 , 616–17 (Tex. 1972) (applying the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving a minor’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent).

2015See State v. K.E.W., 315 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tex. 2010) (“The expiration of the time for which [the patient] was ordered to receive services [and medication] does not require the appeal to be dismissed for mootness.”); State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 910, 912 (Tex. 1980) (“collateral consequences” exception to the mootness doctrine applies to appeals from involuntary commitments in a mental hospital for a period not to exceed 90 days when the patient already has been discharged; dismissal of a cause as moot does not remove the “collateral consequences of a commitment for mental health to the same e

2017Moreover, as the First court pointed out, for a particular case to fall within this mootness doctrine exception, a party must also demonstrate a “reasonable expectation that the same action will occur again if the issue is not . considered.” Blank, 2015 WL 4747022 , at *3 (citing Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999)).

2015The mootness doctrine implicates subject-matter v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex.1999).

2020NextEra also argues that this case falls within the “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine.2 The “public interest” exception “allows appellate review of a question of considerable public importance if that question is capable of repetition between either the same parties or other members of the public but for some reason evades appellate review.” Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d at 303 .

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298 (1993) 81 Ed. Law Rep. 1145 , 1 A.D.D. 742, 3 NDLR P 263 exception” to the mootness doctrine, and adhere to our earlier some reason evades appellate review.

2021There are two exceptions to the doctrine of mootness: “(1) the issue is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review[,’] and (2) the collateral consequences doctrine.” Trulock, 277 S.W.3d at 924 .

2010Although Sepulveda contends Sherbet’s affidavit is not properly before the Court, we conclude otherwise. 5 “The mootness doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction.” Trulock v. City of Duncanville, 277 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet.).

2023See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 789 (Tex. 2006); Phillips, 651 S.W.3d at 116 (holding collateral consequences exception to mootness applied to appeal of protective order).

2023See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 789 .

2024Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016) (citing Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012)) (“The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.”).

2024The mootness doctrine “prevents courts from 2 rendering advisory opinions, which are outside the jurisdiction conferred by Texas Constitution article II, section 1.” Id. (citing Valley Baptist Med.

2026“The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.” Id.

2025“The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.” Id.

2007Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (recognizing public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498, 501 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005), rev'd on other grounds, Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2007) (same); Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (same); Univ.

2007Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (recognizing public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); In re Guardianship of Keller, 171 S.W.3d 498, 501 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005), rev’d on other grounds, Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2007) (same); Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (same); Univ.

2026Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016) (“The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.”); Barr v. Resolution Tr.

2026Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016) (“The mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of subsequent events.”).

2015Securtec, Inc. v. County of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 809 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (citing Scurlock Permian Corp. v. Brazos County, 869 S.W.2d 478, 487 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied)).

2015Camarena v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, Robinson appeals only the dismissal of his request for a 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.1988); Scurlock Permian Corp. declaration that his constitutional rights were violated by v. Brazos County, 869 S.W.2d 478, 487 (Tex.App.-Houston AISD and his request for injunctive relief ordering AISD to expunge his employee file.

2025See Truong v. State, 580 S.W.3d 203 , 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy 20 exists between the parties.”); Ex parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d) (“When there has ceased to be a controversy between the litigating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has been rendered by the trial court, the decision of an appellate court would be a mere academic exercise and the court may not decide the appeal.”).

2025See Truong v. State, 580 S.W.3d 203 , 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy 20 exists between the parties.”); Ex parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d) (“When there has ceased to be a controversy between the litigating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has been rendered by the trial court, the decision of an appellate court would be a mere academic exercise and the court may not decide the appeal.”).

2023See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983) (“[T]he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”); Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289 , 290–91 (Tex. 2011) (“‘Capable of repetition yet evading review’ is a rare exception to the mootness doctrine.” (quoting Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001))).

2020Land Office of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990)). “ʻCapable of repetition yet evading review’ is a rare exception to the mootness doctrine.” Texas A & M University–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290 (Tex. 2011).

2023And . . . for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought.”); James v. Hubbard, 21 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (stating that under the mootness doctrine there must be an actual controversy between the parties at all stages of the proceedings); see also Bell v. State, 515 S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim.

2023And . . . for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought.”); James v. Hubbard, 21 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (stating that under the mootness doctrine there must be an actual controversy between the parties at all stages of the proceedings); see also Bell v. State, 515 S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim.

2024See City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

2018Id. (citing Heckman v. Williamson Cnty. , 369 S.W.3d 137 , 162 (Tex. 2012) ); see also City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462 , 469 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) ("The mootness doctrine dictates that courts avoid rendering advisory opinions by only deciding issues that present a 'live' controversy at the time of the decision.").

2025Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); Dominguez v. Dominguez, 583 S.W.3d 365 , 370 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied)("The mootness doctrine implicates a court's subject matter jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction is essential to a court's power to decide a case."); see also Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998)(justiciability doctrines such as ripeness, as well as standing and mootness, lie in prohibiting advisory opinions, which in turn stem from the separation of powers doctrine set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the

2024Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100-01 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); Dominguez v. Dominguez, 583 S.W.3d 365 , 370 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied) (“The mootness doctrine implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case.”); see also Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998) (justiciability doctrines such as ripeness, as well as standing and mootness, lie in prohibitin

2024Dist., 298 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The mootness doctrine precludes a court from rendering an advisory opinion in a case where there is no live controversy.”); Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“[I]f a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.”).

2023Dist., 298 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The mootness doctrine precludes a court from rendering an advisory opinion in a case where there is no live controversy.”); Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“[I]f a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in 3 the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.”).

2016The “Capable of Repetition, yet Evading Review” Exception The second exception to the mootness doctrine is when a claim is “‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” Pharris v. State, 165 S.W.3d 681 , 687–88 (Tex. Crim.

2010Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review Exception One exception to the mootness doctrine occurs when a claim is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Pharris v. State , 165 S.W.3d 681 , 687–88 (Tex. Crim.

2025Mootness and Subject Matter Jurisdiction “The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting FDIC v. Nueces Cnty., 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994)).

2021Mootness *3 Section 552.321 of the PIA waives sovereign “The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding immunity allowing a requestor to file suit for a writ cases in which an actual controversy exists.” Hous. of mandamus compelling a governmental body to Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. Thomas, 196 S.W.3d 396 , make information available for public inspection if the © 2021 Thomson Reuters.

2023The Click court held that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine applied because the complained-of act was a recurring practice of short duration without review before the issue became moot. 867 S.W.2d at 408–09. 17 Putnam, Gates, and Carrollton Both Gates and Putnam are distinguishable from these facts.

2023The first prong of the mootness exception must be fact driven and may vary depending on the area of law and circumstances, which in this case reflect an extensive pattern in which In its January 13, 2022 plea to the jurisdiction, Appellee stated: “If [Appellant] wants to change 25 ‘promptly’ to ‘immediately’ it should go to the Legislature.” 26 See also Nehls, 522 S.W.3d at 33 ; Click, 867 S.W.2d at 407–08 (regarding a governmental entity’s practice of routinely withholding discoverable public information such that it was a “recurring problem”). 27 For example, Appellant’s January 31, 2020 ori

2023The Matthews court also relied on Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc., 94 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied). 22 the circumstances required by the first exception to the mootness doctrine, as well as those circumstances anticipated by the public interest exception.22 In addition to requiring that the act challenged must be of such a short duration that the appellant cannot obtain review before it becomes moot, there must also be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.

2015Council, 94 S.W.3d at 846 (“The mootness doctrine dictates that courts avoid rendering advisory opinions by only deciding cases that present a ‘live’ controversy at the time of the decision.”).

2008The doctrine of mootness “limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” In re Salgado, 53 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, orig. proceeding).

2008Salgado, 53 S.W.3d at 757 . *84 Texas law, however, does recognize a “collateral consequences” exception to the mootness doctrine.

2024Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam)).

2017Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (ruling on moot controversy constitutes impermissible advisory opinion); In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) ("The mootness doctrine prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions . . .

2023See, e.g., State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1980) (applying the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving involuntary commitment to a mental hospital); 8 Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612 , 616–17 (Tex. 1972) (applying the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving a minor’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent).

2006See State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex.1980) (applying the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving involuntary commitment to a mental hospital); Carrilo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612, 616-17 (Tex.1972) (applying-the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine in a case involving a minor’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent).

2015However, several intermediate courts of appeals have reviewed challenges to expired protective orders under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine on the ground that the “effects of a protective order carry significant collateral legal repercussions and a social stigma even though the protective order has expired.” State for Prot. of Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 303 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (Texas Family Code requires commission of family violence be considered in determining child custody); see Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, 246 S.W.3d 267, 270 (Tex. App

2011Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d at 303 .1 Thus, we find that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies in this case.

2024Dist., 298 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The mootness doctrine precludes a court from rendering an advisory opinion in a case where there is no live controversy.”); Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“[I]f a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.”).

2023Dist., 298 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The mootness doctrine precludes a court from rendering an advisory opinion in a case where there is no live controversy.”); Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“[I]f a judgment cannot have a practical effect on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in 3 the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.”).