mootness doctrine in Kansas

2024The doctrine has been described by our Supreme Court as arising out of court policy, which recognizes that the role of a court is to "'determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.'" State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86, 89 , 200 P.3d 455 (2009) (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504 , 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). "'A court policy necessarily comes about

2024The doctrine has been described by our Supreme Court as arising out of court policy, which recognizes that the role of a court is to "'determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.'" State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86, 89 , 200 P.3d 455 (2009) (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504 , 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). "'A court policy necessarily comes about

2024Our Supreme Court explored the mootness doctrine at length in State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 584, 466 P.3d 439 (2020).

2021It is also consistent with the mootness rule in State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 596, 466 P.3d 439 (2020), that an appeal be dismissed after changed circumstances render a case moot unless "leaving a judgment intact will affect vital rights of the parties." Failing to heed this caution would put us in the position of rendering an advisory opinion.

2024The doctrine has been described by our Supreme Court as arising out of court policy, which recognizes that the role of a court is to "'determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.'" State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86, 89 , 200 P.3d 455 (2009) (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504 , 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). "'A court policy necessarily comes about

2024The doctrine has been described by our Supreme Court as arising out of court policy, which recognizes that the role of a court is to "'determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.'" State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86, 89 , 200 P.3d 455 (2009) (quoting Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500, 504 , 912 P.2d 716 [1996]). "'A court policy necessarily comes about

2022While the mootness doctrine is subject to exceptions, including one where the harm is capable of repetition or involves a question of public importance, State v. DuMars, 37 Kan.

2014One commonly applied exception to the mootness doctrine is that this court will issue decisions in circumstances where a moot issue “ 3s capable of repetition and raises concerns of public importance.’ ” Montgomery, 295 Kan. at 841 , (quoting State v. DuMars, 37 Kan.

2023Such consideration would simply result in an advisory opinion which we decline to render." 48 Kan.

2022Such consideration would simply result in an advisory opinion which we decline to render." 48 Kan.

2007The mootness doctrine is one of court policy which recognizes that it is the function of a judicial tribunal to determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.’ [Citation omitted.]” Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242, 244 , 106 P.3d 28 (2005).

2007The mootness doctrine is one of court policy which recognizes that it is the function of a judicial tribunal to determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.’ [Citation omitted.]” Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242, 244 , 106 P.3d 28 (2005).

2025The burden then shifts to the party opposing the mootness challenge to show the existence of a substantial interest that would be impaired by dismissal or that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies. [Citations omitted.]" 311 Kan. at 593. 29 In State v. Lehman, 308 Kan. 1089 , 1094, 427 P.3d 840 (2018), our Supreme Court stated: "[T]he United States Supreme Court has held that, when considering whether a subsequent increase in the severity of a criminal sentence constitutes a double jeopardy violation, the appropriate inquiry is whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of fina

2025United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 135-36 , 101 S. Ct. 426 , 66 L.

2025United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 135-36 , 101 S. Ct. 426 , 66 L.

2025But even if we agreed the appeal is moot, "the mootness doctrine is merely a court policy and not an absolute bar to deciding an issue." State v. Kurtz, 51 Kan.

2025App. 2d 50, 52 , 340 P.3d 509 (2014).

2023It found that exceptions to the mootness rule applied because the issue was one of statewide interest that was likely to arise again. 304 Kan. at 680 .

2023The court then "elect[ed] to set out certain contours for evaluating claims of constitutional liberty interests in the context of extended administrative segregation." 304 Kan. at 680 .

2022Burch v. Howard, 57 Kan.

2021Conspicuously, the records custodian did not seek review of the panel's ruling that exceptions to the mootness doctrine allowed consideration of the issues. 55 Kan.

2021Recognizing that he has completed his six-month sentence for the contempt judgment, Trimmell heads off a mootness claim by asserting "'[t]he appeal of a conviction for criminal contempt is not rendered moot by the fact that a defendant has served his or her full jail time and cannot be subjected to additional jail time.'" State v. Flanagan, 19 Kan.

2021App. 2d 528 , Syl. ¶ 1, 873 P.2d 195 (1994).

2021As stated above, Ward argued in his response to the show cause order that his appeal is not moot because "the finding that he violated the terms of his probation [by committing domestic battery in 2014] may be used against [him] in the future to deny him probation or to possibly subject him to an upward departure sentence." He cites State v. Snow, 40 Kan.

2021The mootness doctrine is one of court policy, under which the court is to "'determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.' [Citations omitted.]" Stano v. Pryor, 52 Kan.

2021App. 2d 679, 682-83 , 372 P.3d 427 (2016) (quoting State v. Hilton, 295 Kan. 845, 849 , 286 P.3d 871 [2012]).Appellate review of whether a case should be dismissed for mootness is unlimited.

2021The State addresses an exception to the mootness doctrine, which provides our appellate courts with the authority to address the merits of an otherwise moot case if it is one of "public importance." Perhaps anticipating that Harmon would assert this exception to the mootness doctrine, the State argues that we should not reach the merits of Harmon's claim because the Kansas Supreme Court has already "resolv[ed] similar issues in analogous situations" (citing State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 , 333-37, 460 P.3d 828 (2020).

2021State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 583-84, 466 P.3d 439 (2020); see State v. Tracy, 311 Kan. 605 , 609-10, 466 P.3d 434 (2020) (affirming Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss because Tracy did not provide support for meaningful interests he claimed on appeal and exceptions to mootness did not apply); State v. Sykes, 311 Kan. 612 , 613-14, 465 P.3d 1152 (2020) (rejecting Court of Appeals' mootness analysis because courts must avoid blanket application of mootness doctrine, but court affirmed dismissal because Sykes failed to preserve issue); State v. Mayes, 311 Kan. 615 , 617, 465 P.3d 1141 (2020)

2021State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 , 583-84, 466 P.3d 439 (2020); see State v. Tracy, 311 Kan. 605 , 609-10, 466 P.3d 434 (2020) (affirming Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss because Tracy did not provide support for meaningful interests he claimed on appeal and exceptions to mootness did not apply); State v. Sykes, 311 Kan. 612 , 613-14, 465 P.3d 1152 (2020) (rejecting Court of Appeals' mootness analysis because courts must avoid blanket application of mootness doctrine, but court affirmed dismissal because Sykes failed to preserve issue); State v. Mayes, 311 Kan. 615 , 617, 465 P.3d 1141 (2020)

2020As early as 1899, this court stated its basis for declining to consider "mere moot questions": "'The time of this court ought not to be occupied by the consideration of abstract questions of law, however important and interesting they may be.'" State, ex rel., v.Railway, 90 Kan. 20 , 56 P. 755 (1899) (quoting Hurd v. Beck, 88 Kan. 11, 12 , 45 P. 92 [1896]). 6 In 1945, this court explicitly rejected a jurisdictional component to mootness and described mootness as a "rule of court policy," explaining that "[t]he fact that an issue has become moot does not necessarily mean that the appellate cour