public importance exception in Pennsylvania

2024Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), aff’d, [ 992 A.2d 121 (Pa. 2010)].

2023Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), aff’d, [ 992 A.2d 121 (Pa. 2010)].

2021See Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 613 Pa. at 21 , 32 A.3d at 652 (referencing the public-importance exception).

2021See Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 613 Pa. at 21 , 32 A.3d at 652 (referencing the public-importance exception).

2021See Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 613 Pa. at 21 , 32 A.3d at 652 (referencing the public-importance exception).

2021See Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 613 Pa. at 21 , 32 A.3d at 652 (referencing the public-importance exception).

2026Bd. of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted). 8 repetition and apt to elude appellate review”; (2) where “a party to the controversy will clearly continue to suffer detriment due to the decision of the trial court”; or (3) “in rare instances,” where an “appeal[] concern[s] questions of great public importance.” Id.; see Driscoll v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 201 A.3d 265, 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“It is evident that the public importance exception is very rarely applied, and, where it is applied, the cases involve concrete harm to society.”).

2024As a result, “the public importance exception is very rarely applied, and, where it is applied, the cases involve concrete harm to society.” Id. at 272 .

2026Bd. of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted). 8 repetition and apt to elude appellate review”; (2) where “a party to the controversy will clearly continue to suffer detriment due to the decision of the trial court”; or (3) “in rare instances,” where an “appeal[] concern[s] questions of great public importance.” Id.; see Driscoll v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 201 A.3d 265, 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“It is evident that the public importance exception is very rarely applied, and, where it is applied, the cases involve concrete harm to society.”).

2024Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (Fletcher, J., dissenting) (providing a through discussion of federal mootness jurisprudence, mootness principles generally, and collecting state cases recognizing a public-importance exception); Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065 , 1071 n.19 (Alaska 1978) (collecting state public-importance cases); State v. Rochon, 75 So.3d 876, 883-87 (La. 2011) (reviewing federal and state mootness jurisprudence with particular focus on the various applications of the repetition/review and public-importance exceptions); City of Albuquerque v. Campos, 525 P.2d 8

2024The Tennessee Supreme Court usefully has offered the following explanation of the traditional justiciability factors: “While the doctrines of standing and ripeness focus on the suit’s birth, the doctrine of mootness focuses attention on the suit’s death.” Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County, 301 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2009) (“Norma Faye Pyles”). 16 See Norma Faye Pyles, 301 S.W.3d at 204 (“In the absence of an explicit constitutional imperative, decisions to dismiss a case on the ground of mootness require the exercise of judgment based on the facts and circumstances of

2024The Tennessee Supreme Court usefully has offered the following explanation of the traditional justiciability factors: “While the doctrines of standing and ripeness focus on the suit’s birth, the doctrine of mootness focuses attention on the suit’s death.” Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam County, 301 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2009) (“Norma Faye Pyles”). 16 See Norma Faye Pyles, 301 S.W.3d at 204 (“In the absence of an explicit constitutional imperative, decisions to dismiss a case on the ground of mootness require the exercise of judgment based on the facts and circumstances of

2024Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (Fletcher, J., dissenting) (providing a through discussion of federal mootness jurisprudence, mootness principles generally, and collecting state cases recognizing a public-importance exception); Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065 , 1071 n.19 (Alaska 1978) (collecting state public-importance cases); State v. Rochon, 75 So.3d 876, 883-87 (La. 2011) (reviewing federal and state mootness jurisprudence with particular focus on the various applications of the repetition/review and public-importance exceptions); City of Albuquerque v. Campos, 525 P.2d 8

2024As well, the degree to which local municipalities may regulate their rental markets 24 Evertson v. City of Kimball, 767 N.W.2d 751, 758 (Neb. 2009) (footnotes omitted); see In re Interest of Anaya, 758 N.W.2d 10, 17 (Neb. 2008) (applying public-interest exception to case concerning interaction of religious freedom and parents’ decision not to comply with newborn screening statute); accord Young v. House, 648 S.W.3d 706 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) (applying the same three-factor test). 25 Nor, by any means, are these the only courts to connect the public-importance exception to the guidance of public o

2024As well, the degree to which local municipalities may regulate their rental markets 24 Evertson v. City of Kimball, 767 N.W.2d 751, 758 (Neb. 2009) (footnotes omitted); see In re Interest of Anaya, 758 N.W.2d 10, 17 (Neb. 2008) (applying public-interest exception to case concerning interaction of religious freedom and parents’ decision not to comply with newborn screening statute); accord Young v. House, 648 S.W.3d 706 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) (applying the same three-factor test). 25 Nor, by any means, are these the only courts to connect the public-importance exception to the guidance of public o

2024See, e.g., Lutz v. Tanglewood Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 866 A.2d 471, 473 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); In re Gen.

2024A final decision on the matter would provide guidance for potentially hundreds of public officials whose offices and authority it 27 The MHOA authorizes housing regulations as follows: In addition to other remedies provided by law, and in order to promote the public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare, all [cities of the second class, et al,] in this Commonwealth are hereby authorized and empowered to enact and enforce suitable ordinances to govern and regulate the construction, alteration, repairs, occupation, maintenance, sanitation, lighting, ventilation, water supply, toilet fa

2024Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (Fletcher, J., dissenting) (providing a through discussion of federal mootness jurisprudence, mootness principles generally, and collecting state cases recognizing a public-importance exception); Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065 , 1071 n.19 (Alaska 1978) (collecting state public-importance cases); State v. Rochon, 75 So.3d 876, 883-87 (La. 2011) (reviewing federal and state mootness jurisprudence with particular focus on the various applications of the repetition/review and public-importance exceptions); City of Albuquerque v. Campos, 525 P.2d 8

2023“It is only in very rare cases where exceptional circumstances exist or where matters or questions of great public importance are involved, that this [C]ourt ever decides moot questions.” Id. (quoting Wortex Mills, Inc. v. Textile Workers Union of Am[erica, 85 A.2d 851, 857 (Pa. 1952))]. *** It is evident that the public importance exception is very rarely applied, and, where it is applied, the cases involve concrete harm to society.