mootness doctrine in Pennsylvania

2025See In re D.A., supra. Further, no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply here.

2024See In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that the mootness doctrine applies when, inter alia, the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review).

2026The mootness doctrine “requires that an actual case or controversy be in existence ‘at all stages of review, not just merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Driscoll v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila, 201 A.3d 265, 268 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. 1978)).

2026The mootness doctrine requires that ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” In re Gross, . . . 382 A.2d 116 ([Pa.] 1978) (quoting G.

2024The mootness doctrine requires that ‘an actual case or controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, . . . [ 812 A.2d 591 , 599- 600 ([Pa.] 2002)] (citation omitted).

2022See, e.g., Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591, 600-01 (Pa. 2002) (alluding to the great-public-importance exception to the mootness doctrine, particularly in the face of a material lack of clarity in governing law).

2025However, “this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917, 920 (Pa.Super. 2013) (holding that review of expired temporary PFA order was appropriate where issues raised on appeal were capable of repetition and apt to elude

2025See Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa.Super. 2013) (opinion per curiam) (recognizing PFA orders are usually temporary and fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine of issues which may have important public policy considerations and are apt to elude appellate review).

2025That said, neither party has raised the issue of mootness and this Court is not obligated “to search outside the record to invoke the mootness doctrine sua sponte[.]” Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm’n, 983 A.2d 708, 718 (Pa. 2009).

2010See, e.g., Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm’n, 603 Pa. 292 , 983 A.2d 708, 719 (2009); Gross, supra. The Board rejected the Association’s claim that “the factual situation presented here falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine,” and dismissed the charge without issuing a complaint.

2025“The mootness doctrine requires an actual case or controversy to exist at all stages.” Com., Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cnty., 32 A.3d 639, 651 (Pa. 2011).

2025“The mootness doctrine requires an actual case or controversy to exist at all stages.” Com., Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cnty., 32 A.3d 639, 651 (Pa. 2011).

2022See id. (concluding appeal from denial of preliminary injunction to enforce non-compete agreement was moot because ____________________________________________ or abstract questions, nor can we enter a judgment or decree to which effect cannot be given.” M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). -5- J-A06034-22 agreement had expired).3 However, we must consider whether this case presents an exception to the mootness doctrine.

2021An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect. *** Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public important, 2) the question is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court. -7- J-A01009-21 Lico, Inc. v. Dougal, 216 A.3d 1129, 1132 (Pa. Super.

2025Thus, we conclude that Penn Sycamore’s issues meet the mootness exception, see Orfield, supra, and we proceed to address the merits of its claims.

2024See id. at 278 (determining an appeal from a civil contempt order was excepted from the -8- J-A26024-24 mootness doctrine where the trial court sanctioned father to six months of incarceration and father served the entire term, but had not paid off his arrears and was still subject to the trial court’s order to make monthly payments); see also Warmkessel v. Hefner, 17 A.3d 408, 413 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that appellant met an exception to the mootness doctrine when, even though he had completed his sentence, he remained subject to the same order, he might face civil contempt proceedings ag

2025See Barrett v. Barrett, 368 A.2d 616 , 619 n.1 (Pa. 1977) (holding that the mootness exception applied even though contemnor’s imprisonment sanction had concluded, since he remained “subject to [] orders of support and a failure to comply with them might again subject him to contempt proceedings”); Warmkessel, 17 A.3d at 413 (same).

2025See Warmkessel v. Hefner, 17 A.3d 408, 413 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that appellant met an exception to the mootness doctrine when, even though he had completed his sentence, he remained subject to the same order, he might face civil contempt proceedings again, and he and other similarly situated defendants could raise the same claim in the future). - 31 - J-A21038-24 The trial court noted that Batterman produced the report on October 11, 2023, and the trial court scheduled a hearing for October 13, 2023, to determine whether the purge conditions had been satisfied.

2025Although this matter therefore appears moot, I believe this issue meets an established exception to the mootness doctrine because “it raises important public policy questions which may otherwise escape review.” Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 , 1053 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (concluding an issue involving a PFA order met an exception to the mootness doctrine); see also Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 , 980 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1993) (holding the same, explaining that “[PFA] [o]rders are usually temporary, and it is seldom that we have the opportunity to review one before it expires”). 5 It is undispute

2024See Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 , 980 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1993) (reviewing an expired six- month PFA order because it fell “into the well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine of a case which has important public policy considerations and yet may escape review.”); see also id. (observing that PFA orders “are usually temporary, and it is seldom that we have the opportunity to review one before it expires.”). 5 Appellant objected to her exclusion from the residence, pointing out that her personal belongings remained therein.

2026Ct. of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 , 1279–80 (Pa. 2006) (discussing the exception to the mootness doctrine “where the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade review, where the case involves issues important to the public interest or where a party will suffer some detriment without the court’s decision” (cleaned up)).

2024But our approach to the “case or controversy requirements,” including mootness, is prudential rather than jurisdictional,15 and there also is much to be said for measuring whether to apply mootness exceptions against the particular circumstances, equities, and the broader public interest implicated in a particular case.16 Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 -1279-80 (Pa. 2006)) (“Exceptions to [the mootness doctrine] are made where the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade review, where the case involves issues important to the public interest or where a party will suffer some de

2016See Shandra v. Williams, 819 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating that appeals from PFA orders “[raise] issues that fall into the well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine of issues which have important public policy considerations and yet may escape review. [PFAA] Orders are usually temporary, and it is seldom that we have the opportunity to review one before it expires.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917, 920 (Pa. Super. 2013). 3 The majority of Mother’s assertions in her brief concern the child custody litigation, which is no

2003Even if the appeal were technically moot, we find that the current appeal falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine in that it presents a question “capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review.” Shandra, 819 A.2d at 90 . ¶ 13 The only authority cited by the court to justify its actions is the court’s assertion that “there was substantial evidence that the children, as a result of their parents’ conduct, were ‘dependent’ as they lacked proper care necessary for their physical, mental and emotional health.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/12/02, at 5 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 (relat

2021While this Court has indicated that the issue of mootness is a pure question of law subject to de novo review, Commonwealth v. Dixon, 589 Pa. 28, 35 , 907 A.2d 468, 472 (2006), it has also emphasized the discretionary nature of the decision whether to invoke an exception to the mootness doctrine and found that an abuse of discretion standard applied to judicial review of a quasi-judicial determination of mootness.

2021While this Court has indicated that the issue of mootness is a pure question of law subject to de novo review, Commonwealth v. Dixon, 589 Pa. 28, 35 , 907 A.2d 468, 472 (2006), it has also emphasized the discretionary nature of the decision whether to invoke an exception to the mootness doctrine and found that an abuse of discretion standard applied to judicial review of a quasi-judicial determination of mootness.

2023Pilchesky v. Lackawanna County, 88 A.3d 954, 964 (Pa. 2014); Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 780 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

2021“The mootness doctrine requires that there is an actual case or controversy at all stages of review.” Pilchesky v. Lackawanna Cnty., 624 Pa. 633, 650 , 88 A.3d 954, 964 (2014).

2025In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 680 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2021An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect. *** Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public important, 2) the question is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court. -7- J-A01009-21 Lico, Inc. v. Dougal, 216 A.3d 1129, 1132 (Pa. Super.

2024“Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” In re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted).

2020“Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” In re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127 (Pa. Super.

2017As our court has previously stated: “The mootness doctrine requires that an actual case or controversy must be extant at all stages of review . . . .” Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375 , 812 A.2d 591, 600 (2002) (quoting In Re Cain, 527 Pa. 260 , 590 A.2d 291, 292 (1991)).

2017As our court has previously stated: “The mootness doctrine requires that an actual case or controversy must be extant at all stages of review . . . .” Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375 , 812 A.2d 591, 600 (2002) (quoting In Re Cain, 527 Pa. 260 , 590 A.2d 291, 292 (1991)).

2026Despite a determination that a case is moot, “[t]his Court will decide questions that otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” Id. at 633 (citation omitted) One exception potentially applicable here is the collateral consequence exception.

2025See Commonwealth v. Nava, 966 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa.Super. 2009) (stating exceptions to the mootness doctrine). -6- J-A08027-25 “willfully failed to keep in contact with his Lehigh County Probation Officer.” Madsen’s Br. at 13.

2025See Chruby, 4 A.3d at 770-71 .10 10 “Exceptions to the mootness doctrine may be made where the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade judicial review, where the case involves issues of great public importance, or where one party will suffer a detriment without the court’s decision.” Gray, 311 A.3d at 1236 (citation omitted).

2025Exceptions to the mootness doctrine “are made where (1) the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade review, (2) the case involves issues important to the public interest, or (3) a party will suffer some detriment without the court’s decision.” Chruby v. Department of Corrections, 4 A.3d 764, 771 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2015Initially, we note that case law discussing the third exception to the mootness doctrine expressly requires only that a party “will suffer some detriment due to the trial court’s decision,” which can be “collateral legal consequences of the court order.” In re L.Z., 91 A.3d 208, 212 (Pa.Super.2014) (en banc) (emphasis added), rev’d on other grounds, — Pa.—, 111 A.3d 1164 (2015).

2015Initially, we note that case law discussing the third exception to the mootness doctrine expressly requires only that a party “will suffer some detriment due to the trial court’s decision,” which can be “collateral legal consequences of the court order.” In re L.Z., 91 A.3d 208, 212 (Pa.Super.2014) (en banc) [ ], appeal granted on other grounds, [ 626 Pa. 257 ] 96 A.3d 989 (Pa.2014).

2026WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: April 21, 2026 Before the Court are the preliminary objections (POs) and suggestion of mootness1 filed by the PA Department of Corrections (DOC) to the Amended 1 Pa.R.A.P. 1972(a)(4) states, in relevant part: “[S]ubject to Pa.R.A.P. 123, any party may move . . . [t]o dismiss [a PFR] for mootness.” Indeed, as this Court has explained: “Under the mootness doctrine a case may be dismissed for mootness at any time by a court, because[,] generally,

2024“Under the mootness doctrine,” however, “a case may be dismissed for mootness at any time by a court, because generally, an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of the judicial or administrative process.” Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. Dentici, 542 A.2d 229, 230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).

2024See Mistich v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (after a suit is filed, the mootness doctrine may be invoked where there is no actual case or controversy between the parties). 2 This Court may take judicial notice of official court records and public documents.

2019Moreover, in order for their constitutional claims to fall within the foregoing exception to the mootness doctrine, Petitioners Brouillette and Lewis must demonstrate that: "(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [i]s a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party w[ill] be subjected to the same action again." Mistich , 863 A.2d at 121 n.6 (citing Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U.S. 393 , 95 S.Ct. 553 , 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975).

2025As Mr. Van correctly suggests, there are limited exceptions to our doctrine of mootness, which permit a court to consider technically moot issues “where the 5 conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade review, where the case involves issues important to the public interest or where a party will suffer some detriment without the court’s decision.” Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1036 (Pa. 2009).

2023First, “the great public importance exception to the mootness doctrine ‘is generally confined to a narrow category of cases.’” Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting Bottomer v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 859 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Pa. 2004)).

1995In Reichley v. North Penn School District, 113 Pa. Commw. 528 , 537 A.2d 391 (1988), the Commonwealth Court remanded for further proceedings an equity suit which attacked the constitutionality of section 1003 of the Public Employee Relations Act of 1970 which permitted teachers to strike even though the teachers had gone back to work saying “where, as here, there is a question of significant dimension that is capable of repetition yet evading review, the mootness doctrine need not bar the action.” Reichley, supra at 532 , 537 A.2d at 393 .

1995In Reichley v. North Penn School District, 113 Pa. Commw. 528 , 537 A.2d 391 (1988), the Commonwealth Court remanded for further proceedings an equity suit which attacked the constitutionality of section 1003 of the Public Employee Relations Act of 1970 which permitted teachers to strike even though the teachers had gone back to work saying “where, as here, there is a question of significant dimension that is capable of repetition yet evading review, the mootness doctrine need not bar the action.” Reichley, supra at 532 , 537 A.2d at 393 .

2022However, our courts have repeatedly emphasized that cases will not be dismissed as moot when the issue presented is one of great public importance, Meyer v. Strouse, 221 A.2d 191 (Pa. 1966); Graziano Construction, Inc. v. Lee, 444 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super 1982); Janet D. v. Carros, 362 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1976), or when the issue is capable of repetition yet escaping judicial review, Devlin v. Osser, 254 A.2d 303 (Pa. 1969); Werner v. King, 164 A. 918 (1933); Graziano, supra. Notably, in Benn, which the Commonwealth relies on, this Court found that the issue of whether a trial court had the auth

2003Moreover, “moot appeals will be reviewed where a party to the controversy will clearly continue to suffer detriment due to the decision of the trial court.” Janet D. v. Carros, 240 Pa.Super. 291 , 362 A.2d 1060, 1070 (1976). ¶ 5 This case raises issues that fall into the well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine of issues which have important public policy considerations and yet may escape review.

2024As a result, the first exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply because “the duration of the challenged action [is not] too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and . . . there is [not] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Clinkscale, 101 A.3d at 139-40 (alterations in original).

2023Again, as this Court has explained: There are, however, limited exceptions to the mootness doctrine: “Although we generally will not decide moot cases, exceptions are made when (1) the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet evading 11 review, or (2) involves questions important to the public interest, or (3) will cause one party to suffer some detriment without the Court’s decision.” Clinkscale [v. Department of Public Welfare, 101 A.3d 137, 139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)] (quoting [Philadelphia Public School Notebook v. School District of Philadelphia], 49 A.3d 445 , 448-49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2

1991In addition to relying on Ulmer, the Sheehan court also interpreted several United States Supreme Court decisions as instructing that “the possibility of either civil or criminal collateral consequences forecloses application of the mootness doctrine.” Sheehan, 446 Pa. at 42 -43 n. 9, 285 A.2d at 469 n. 9 (citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 , 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 , 89 S.Ct. 1354 , 22 L.Ed.2d

1991In addition to relying on Ulmer, the Sheehan court also interpreted several United States Supreme Court decisions as instructing that “the possibility of either civil or criminal collateral consequences forecloses application of the mootness doctrine.” Sheehan, 446 Pa. at 42 -43 n. 9, 285 A.2d at 469 n. 9 (citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 , 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 , 89 S.Ct. 1354 , 22 L.Ed.2d

2026Finding of court. *** (3) The order may initially be oral, provided that it is reduced to writing within twenty-four hours or the next court business day. ____________________________________________ 2 As it relates to the application of the mootness doctrine, “an actual claim or controversy must be present at all stages of the judicial process for the case to be actionable or reviewable.” In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497, 502 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citations omitted).

2025See Estate of Border, 68 A.3d at 953-54 ; Duran, 769 A.2d at 502 .