mootness doctrine in Colorado

2025An appeal is moot when “our decision will 4 have no practical effect on an actual or existing controversy.” People v. Garcia, 2014 COA 85, ¶ 9 ; see also People v. Devorss, 277 P.3d 829, 833 (Colo. App. 2011). ¶ 14 Colorado recognizes two exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2024Cf. People v. Devorss, 277 P.3d 829, 834 (Colo. App. 2011) (applying the mootness exception to review a defendant’s contention that a condition of probation was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him). ¶ 29 For these reasons, we conclude that Vasquez’s appeal is moot and no exception to the mootness doctrine warrants review of his arguments on the merits. 14 III.

2024“Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case is moot ‘only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.’” DePriest, ¶ 9, 487 P.3d at 662 (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968)).

2024“Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case is moot ‘only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.’” DePriest, ¶ 9, 487 P.3d at 662 (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968)).

1995Although the rehearing requested by the petitioners has already occurred, the matter in this case, like so many election cases, falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine which allows review of matters “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983) (citing American Party v. White, 415 U.S. 767 , 94 S.Ct. 1296 , 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); and Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 , 89 S.Ct. 1493 , 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969)).

1995Although the rehearing requested by the petitioners has already occurred, the matter in this case, like so many election cases, falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine which allows review of matters "capable of repetition yet evading review." Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983) (citing American Party v. White, 415 U.S. 767 , 94 S.Ct. 1296 , 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); and Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 , 89 S.Ct. 1493 , 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969)).

2023Stjernholm, 935 P.2d at 971 . ¶22 In our view, at a minimum, the second exception applies here.

2006See State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Stjernholm, supra, 935 P.2d at 970 (discussing the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) issues that are capable of repetition, yet evade review; and (2) issues of great public importance or recurring constitutional violations); Carney v. Civil Serv.

2025See Gresh v. Balink, 148 P.3d 419, 421 (Colo. App. 2006) (“A case is moot when the relief sought, if granted, would have no practical legal effect on the controversy.”). ¶ 41 Based on the mootness doctrine, a court generally will not decide an issue that will not affect the outcome of the case.

2016People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688, 691 (Colo. App. 2008); Gresh v. Balink, 148 P.3d 419, 422 (Colo. App. 2006). ¶ 28 Issues are capable of repetition when they could, or are likely to, reoccur in the future.

2025There is an "exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of 'important issues capable of repetition yet potentially evading review.' " Walton v. People , 2019 CO 95 , ¶ 8 , 451 P.3d 1212 , 1215 ( quoting People v. Brockelman , 933 P.2d 1315, 1318 ( Colo. 1997 ) ) .

2025There is an "exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of 'important issues capable of repetition yet potentially evading review.'" Walton v. People , 2019 CO 95, ¶ 8, 451 P.3d 1212, 1215 (quoting People v. Brockelman , 933 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Colo. 1997)).

2016No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095, 1102 (Colo. 1998). ¶ 27 The mootness doctrine, however, does not always bar judicial review of moot issues.

2009No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095, 1102 (Colo.1998); see also Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)(the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine limited to situations where the challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration).

2024See, e.g., Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 960 (Colo. App. 2003) (applying the public 13 importance exception to interpret a state constitutional amendment adopted by ballot initiative); People in Interest of Yeager, 93 P.3d 589 , 592 (Colo. App. 2004) (applying the exception to determine the authority of a guardian to execute a “do not resuscitate” order on an incapacitated person’s behalf); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 971 P.2d 679, 683 (Colo. App. 1998) (invoking the exception to determine the constitutionality of the Mail Ballot Election Act). ¶ 28 In addition, Vasquez does not allege

2024See, e.g., Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 960 (Colo. App. 2003) (applying the public 13 importance exception to interpret a state constitutional amendment adopted by ballot initiative); People in Interest of Yeager, 93 P.3d 589 , 592 (Colo. App. 2004) (applying the exception to determine the authority of a guardian to execute a “do not resuscitate” order on an incapacitated person’s behalf); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 971 P.2d 679, 683 (Colo. App. 1998) (invoking the exception to determine the constitutionality of the Mail Ballot Election Act). ¶ 28 In addition, Vasquez does not allege

2011See Humphrey, 734 P.2d at 639 .

1997Co., 734 P.2d 637, 639 (Colo.1987)), and the court may hear a moot case involving issues of great public importance or recurring constitutional violation.

2026See People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 106, ¶ 13 ; see also DePriest v. People, 2021 CO 40, ¶ 9 (“Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case is moot ‘only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.’” (citation omitted)). ¶8 Father asserts that the magistrate’s domestic violence finding “carries ongoing collateral consequences” and that it must be vacated.

2026See id.; see also DePriest v. People, 2021 CO 40, ¶ 9 (clarifying that a case is moot “only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed” based on the challenged ruling) (citation omitted). ¶ 12 Two months after father filed his notice of appeal, the Department moved to close the dependency and neglect case on the basis that the parents had successfully completed their treatment plans.

2026See People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 106, ¶ 13 ; see also DePriest v. People, 2021 CO 40, ¶ 9 (“Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case is moot ‘only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.’” (citation omitted)). ¶8 Father asserts that the magistrate’s domestic violence finding “carries ongoing collateral consequences” and that it must be vacated.

2026See People in Interest of C.G., 2015 COA 106, ¶ 37 (describing exceptions to the mootness doctrine). ¶8 Instead, Ardeshiri asserts that these issues have not become moot because the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to amend its 1 We may take judicial notice of the contents of court records in related proceedings.

2024See, e.g., Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 960 (Colo. App. 2003) (applying the public 13 importance exception to interpret a state constitutional amendment adopted by ballot initiative); People in Interest of Yeager, 93 P.3d 589 , 592 (Colo. App. 2004) (applying the exception to determine the authority of a guardian to execute a “do not resuscitate” order on an incapacitated person’s behalf); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 971 P.2d 679, 683 (Colo. App. 1998) (invoking the exception to determine the constitutionality of the Mail Ballot Election Act). ¶ 28 In addition, Vasquez does not allege

2024See, e.g., Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 960 (Colo. App. 2003) (applying the public 13 importance exception to interpret a state constitutional amendment adopted by ballot initiative); People in Interest of Yeager, 93 P.3d 589 , 592 (Colo. App. 2004) (applying the exception to determine the authority of a guardian to execute a “do not resuscitate” order on an incapacitated person’s behalf); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 971 P.2d 679, 683 (Colo. App. 1998) (invoking the exception to determine the constitutionality of the Mail Ballot Election Act). ¶ 28 In addition, Vasquez does not allege

2021Colorado cases addressing this exception to the mootness doc trine differ in their interpretation of the meaning of “capable of repeti tion.” See People in Interest of Vivekanathan , 2013 COA 143M , ¶¶ 25-28, 338 P.3d 1017, 1022 (Hawthorne, J., dissenting).

2021Colorado cases addressing this exception to the mootness doctrine differ in their interpretation of the meaning of "capable of repetition." See People in Interest of Vivekanathan , 2013 COA 143M , ¶¶ 25-28, 338 P.3d 1017, 1022 (Hawthorne, J., dissenting).

2021However, because “[m]ootness is 7 a jurisdictional prerequisite,” Dieh l v. Weiser , 2019 CO 70, ¶ 9 , 444 P.3d 313, 316 , that the partie s can neither agree upon nor waive, Horton v. Suthers , 43 P.3d 6 11, 615 (Colo. 2002), we must determine whether we have jurisdic tion to consider Stackpool’s statutory interpretation argument under an exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶ 15 Although “[a]ppellate courts gener ally will not render opinions on the merits of an appeal when the issues have become moot,” they “may resolve an otherwise mo ot case if the matter is one capable of repetition yet e

2021However, because "[m]ootness is a jurisdictional prerequisite," Diehl v. Weiser , 2019 CO 70, ¶ 9 , 444 P.3d 313, 316 , that the parties can neither agree upon nor waive, Horton v. Suthers , 43 P.3d 611, 615 (Colo. 2002), we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider Stackpool's statutory interpretation argument under an exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶ 15 Although "[a]ppellate courts generally will not render opinions on the merits of an appeal when the issues have become moot," they "may resolve an otherwise moot case if the matter is one capable of repetition yet evading r

2009No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095, 1102 (Colo.1998); see also Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)(the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine limited to situations where the challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration).

2009No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095, 1102 (Colo.1998); see also Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)(the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine limited to situations where the challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration).

2026Exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist when the matter involves an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review, or involves a question of great public importance or recurring constitutional violations, Anderson v. Applewood Water Ass’n, 2016 COA 162, ¶ 27 , 409 P.3d 611, 618 , but plaintiffs do not argue either exception applies here. ¶9 Plaintiffs concede, and we agree, that the portion of their motion requesting that the court enjoin the June 2025 special election, on the ground that the resolutions establishing the election were invalid, is moot because the election has occur

2026Exceptions to the mootness doctrine exist when the matter involves an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review, or involves a question of great public importance or recurring constitutional violations, Anderson v. Applewood Water Ass’n, 2016 COA 162, ¶ 27 , 409 P.3d 611, 618 , but plaintiffs do not argue either exception applies here. ¶9 Plaintiffs concede, and we agree, that the portion of their motion requesting that the court enjoin the June 2025 special election, on the ground that the resolutions establishing the election were invalid, is moot because the election has occur

2008However, an exception to the mootness doctrine occurs when the issue presented is a matter of public importance and "is capable of repetition, yet evading review." See Pipkin v. Brittain, 713 P.2d 1358, 1359 (Colo.App.1985) (quoting Goedecke v. State, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123, 124 (1979).

2008However, an exception to the mootness doctrine occurs when the issue presented is a matter of public importance and "is capable of repetition, yet evading review." See Pipkin v. Brittain, 713 P.2d 1358, 1359 (Colo.App.1985) (quoting Goedecke v. State, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123, 124 (1979).

2021However, because “[m]ootness is 7 a jurisdictional prerequisite,” Dieh l v. Weiser , 2019 CO 70, ¶ 9 , 444 P.3d 313, 316 , that the partie s can neither agree upon nor waive, Horton v. Suthers , 43 P.3d 6 11, 615 (Colo. 2002), we must determine whether we have jurisdic tion to consider Stackpool’s statutory interpretation argument under an exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶ 15 Although “[a]ppellate courts gener ally will not render opinions on the merits of an appeal when the issues have become moot,” they “may resolve an otherwise mo ot case if the matter is one capable of repetition yet e

2021However, because “[m]ootness is 7 a jurisdictional prerequisite,” Dieh l v. Weiser , 2019 CO 70, ¶ 9 , 444 P.3d 313, 316 , that the partie s can neither agree upon nor waive, Horton v. Suthers , 43 P.3d 6 11, 615 (Colo. 2002), we must determine whether we have jurisdic tion to consider Stackpool’s statutory interpretation argument under an exception to the mootness doctrine. ¶ 15 Although “[a]ppellate courts gener ally will not render opinions on the merits of an appeal when the issues have become moot,” they “may resolve an otherwise mo ot case if the matter is one capable of repetition yet e

2025There is an "exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of 'important issues capable of repetition yet potentially evading review.' " Walton v. People , 2019 CO 95 , ¶ 8 , 451 P.3d 1212 , 1215 ( quoting People v. Brockelman , 933 P.2d 1315, 1318 ( Colo. 1997 ) ) .

2025There is an "exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of 'important issues capable of repetition yet potentially evading review.'" Walton v. People , 2019 CO 95, ¶ 8, 451 P.3d 1212, 1215 (quoting People v. Brockelman , 933 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Colo. 1997)).

2021Clerks , Freight Handlers , Exp . & Station Emps . , 466 U.S. 435, 442 ( 1984 ) ) . ¶9 Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case is moot "only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction." Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 57 ( 1968 ) .

2021Clerks, Freight Handlers, Exp. & Station Emps., 466 U.S. 435, 442 (1984)). 10 ¶9 Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, a case 11 is moot “only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal 12 consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Sibron v. 13 New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968).

2006Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50 (Colo.2003); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners Ass’n, 14 P.3d 325 (Colo.2000); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, supra. Here, plaintiff contends the situation in which an election official improperly includes comments in opposition to the proposal made in bad faith by a proposal supporter has occurred numerous times and will continue to occur in the future if left unchecked.

2003Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325, 345 (Colo.2000).

2006Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50 (Colo.2003); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners Ass’n, 14 P.3d 325 (Colo.2000); Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, supra. Here, plaintiff contends the situation in which an election official improperly includes comments in opposition to the proposal made in bad faith by a proposal supporter has occurred numerous times and will continue to occur in the future if left unchecked.

2004See Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50, 71 (Colo.2003).

1988Under our latest formulation of the mootness test, we have held that a case is not moot where the controversy is one “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Goedecke v. State Dept. of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979) (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)); Star Journal Publishing Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 236 , 591 P.2d 1028, 1029 (1979).

1988Under our latest formulation of the mootness test, we have held that a case is not moot where the controversy is one “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Goedecke v. State Dept. of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979) (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)); Star Journal Publishing Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 236 , 591 P.2d 1028, 1029 (1979).

2026People v. Sa’ra, 117 P.3d 51, 56 (Colo. App. 2004). 3 previous order.