mootness doctrine in North Carolina

2021In In re Peoples, we recognized that while “[i]n federal the mootness doctrine is grounded primarily in the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and has been labeled ‘jurisdictional’ by the United States Supreme Court . . . [i]n state courts [including North Carolina] the exclusion of moot questions from determination is not based on a lack of jurisdiction but rather represents a form of judicial restraint.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147 (1978). 40 In the context of an action challenging the constitutionality of a legislative or execu

2021In In re Peoples, we recognized that while “[i]n federal the mootness doctrine is grounded primarily in the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and has been labeled ‘jurisdictional’ by the United States Supreme Court . . . [i]n state courts [including North Carolina] the exclusion of moot questions from determination is not based on a lack of jurisdiction but rather represents a form of judicial restraint.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147 (1978). 40 In the context of an action challenging the constitutionality of a legislative or execu

2012Judges GEER and STEPHENS concur. . “[A] case which is ‘ “capable of repetition, yet evading review” may present an exception to the mootness doctrine.’ ” Boney Publishers, Inc. v. Burlington City Council, 151 N.C.

2009However, there are long-standing exceptions to dismissals based upon the doctrine of mootness, including cases which are "capable of repetition, yet evading review[.]" Boney Publishers, Inc. v. Burlington City Council, 151 N.C.App. 651, 654 , 566 S.E.2d 701, 703 (quotation omitted), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 297 , 571 S.E.2d 221 (2002).

2009Two elements are required for the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine to apply: “(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated *556 prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C.

2009Nevertheless, when "(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again," a case may be excepted from the mootness doctrine as being "capable of repetition, yet evading review." See Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C.App. 719, 723 , 375 S.E.2d 708, 711 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543 , 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989).

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2022App. 531, 536 , 522 S.E.2d 77, 80 (1999) (“An appeal which presents a moot question should be dismissed.”). ¶ 137 Applying the mootness doctrine here, the August 2019 Order mooted the forensic examination issue because it granted all the relief sought via the forensic examination.

2022App. 531, 536 , 522 S.E.2d 77, 80 (1999) (“An appeal which presents a moot question should be dismissed.”). ¶ 135 Applying the mootness doctrine here, the August 2019 Order mooted the forensic examination issue because it granted all the relief sought via the forensic examination.

2018Chambers contends that there are at least three exceptions to the mootness doctrine which preclude dismissal of his action: "cases in which termination of a class representative's claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class," id. at 706, 478 S.E.2d at 821 (quoting Simeon v. Hardin , 339 N.C. 358 , 371, 451 S.E.2d 858 , 867 (1994) ), "a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a ... court of its power to determine the legality of the practice," id. at 705, 478 S.E.2d at 820 (alteration in original) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Ca

2018Chambers contends that there are at least three exceptions to the mootness doctrine which preclude dismissal of his action: "cases in which termination of a class representative's claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class," id. at 706, 478 S.E.2d at 821 (quoting Simeon v. Hardin , 339 N.C. 358 , 371, 451 S.E.2d 858 , 867 (1994) ), "a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a ... court of its power to determine the legality of the practice," id. at 705, 478 S.E.2d at 820 (alteration in original) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Ca

2022Specifically, when “the General Assembly revises a statute in a material and substantial manner, with the intent to get rid of a law of dubious constitutionality, the question of the act’s constitutionality becomes moot.” Id. at 159 , 749 S.E.2d at 454 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 15 There are, however, limited exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2022Specifically, when “the General Assembly revises a statute in a material and substantial manner, with the intent to get rid of a law of dubious constitutionality, the question of the act’s constitutionality becomes moot.” Id. at 159 , 749 S.E.2d at 454 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 15 There are, however, limited exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

2022Id. at 555-56 , 680 S.E.2d at 744 (internal citations and quotations omitted). ¶ 16 Here, the original question in controversy, whether the judicial districts in Mecklenburg County were constitutional, was addressed when the General Assembly repealed that portion of the law and reverted to countywide elections in Mecklenburg ALEXANDER V.

2022Id. at 555-56 , 680 S.E.2d at 744 (internal citations and quotations omitted). ¶ 16 Here, the original question in controversy, whether the judicial districts in Mecklenburg County were constitutional, was addressed when the General Assembly repealed that portion of the law and reverted to countywide elections in Mecklenburg ALEXANDER V.

2020But an exception to the mootness doctrine applies to this case because it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review[.]” Id. at 529 , 776 S.E.2d at 333-34 (“Two elements are required for the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to apply: (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). -4- SOUND RIVERS, INC.

2020But an exception to the mootness doctrine applies to this case because it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review[.]” Id. at 529 , 776 S.E.2d at 333-34 (“Two elements are required for the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to apply: (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). -4- SOUND RIVERS, INC.

2016See, e.g., Honig, 484 U.S. at 330 , 108 S.Ct. at 608 , 98 L.Ed.2d at 711 (1988) (Rehnquist, J. concurring) ("If our mootness doctrine were forced upon us by the case or controversy requirement of Art.

2016See, e.g., Honig, 484 U.S. at 330 , 108 S.Ct. at 608 , 98 L.Ed.2d at 711 (1988) (Rehnquist, J. concurring) ("If our mootness doctrine were forced upon us by the case or controversy requirement of Art.

2011The secured creditor argues that “because [the] debtor failed to post a bond to stay the foreclosure sale and the subject real property was foreclosed upon and sold to a third party, debtor’s appeal should be denied based on the doctrine of mootness.” Our Supreme Court has stated that “[a] case is considered moot when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy.” Lange v. Lange, 357 N.C. 645, 647 , 588 S.E.2d 877, 879 (2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2011The secured creditor argues that “because [the] debtor failed to post a bond to stay the foreclosure sale and the subject real property was foreclosed upon and sold to a third party, debtor’s appeal should be denied based on the doctrine of mootness.” Our Supreme Court has stated that “[a] case is considered moot when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy.” Lange v. Lange, 357 N.C. 645, 647 , 588 S.E.2d 877, 879 (2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2024See Cape Fear River Watch, 368 N.C. at 99–100 (withholding public-interest exception in case that involved a narrow subset of coal facilities and raised record- heavy, fact-bound claims).

2020According to the first of these two exceptions, “this court may, if it chooses, consider a question that involves a matter of public interest, is of general importance[,] and deserves prompt resolution.” Cape Fear, 368 N.C. at 100 , 772 S.E.2d at 450 (quoting N.C.

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2020There, we held that while it is not error as a matter of law to rule on a motion to dismiss prior to ruling on a class certification motion, “[t]his Court is confident that, in determining the sequence in which motions will be considered, North Carolina judges will continue to be mindful of longstanding exceptions to the mootness rule and other factors affecting traditional notions of justice and fair play.” Id. at 40 , 619 S.E.2d at 501 (citing Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371 , 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994); Cty. of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 52 ; 5 James Wm.

2015Crumpler in turn relied on In re Jackson, 84 N.C.App. at 170 -71 , 352 S.E.2d at 452 -a decision that, as noted above, considered similarly situated parties in applying the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. *532 Furthermore, this Court has previously declined to extend the mootness doctrine to a case in which the no-review process was exercised by DHHS.

2015Crumpler in turn relied on In re Jackson, 84 N.C.App. at 170 -71 , 352 S.E.2d at 452 -a decision that, as noted above, considered similarly situated parties in applying the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. *532 Furthermore, this Court has previously declined to extend the mootness doctrine to a case in which the no-review process was exercised by DHHS.

2019In re Swindell , 326 N.C. 473 , 474, 390 S.E.2d 134 , 135 (1990) (dismissing as moot juvenile's appeal of trial court's order committing him to training school where the juvenile was released during the pendency of his appeal); In re W.H. , 166 N.C.

2019In re Swindell , 326 N.C. 473 , 474, 390 S.E.2d 134 , 135 (1990) (dismissing as moot juvenile's appeal of trial court's order committing him to training school where the juvenile was released during the pendency of his appeal); In re W.H. , 166 N.C.

2018Chambers contends that there are at least three exceptions to the mootness doctrine which preclude dismissal of his action: "cases in which termination of a class representative's claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class," id. at 706, 478 S.E.2d at 821 (quoting Simeon v. Hardin , 339 N.C. 358 , 371, 451 S.E.2d 858 , 867 (1994) ), "a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a ... court of its power to determine the legality of the practice," id. at 705, 478 S.E.2d at 820 (alteration in original) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Ca

2018App. 768 , 770, 242 S.E.2d 653 , 654 (1978) ).

2009Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 55 L.

2009Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 55 L.

2016Activities Ass'n, 38 F.3d 1159 , 1161 (10th Cir. 1994) ("The mere fact that the [defendant] claims the action is not moot does not make [it] the complaining party for purposes of analysis under the exception to the mootness doctrine.

2016Activities Ass’n, 38 F.3d 1159, 1161 (10th Cir. 1994) (“The mere fact that the [defendant] claims the action is not moot does not make [it] the complaining party for purposes of analysis under the exception to the mootness doctrine.

2016The complaining parties in this action are the [plaintiffs], and it has been established that they will not be subjected to the actions of the [defendant] again."); Lee v. Schmidt-Wenzel, 766 F.2d 1387 , 1390 (9th Cir.1985) ("The ... [capable of repetition exception] usually is applied to situations involving governmental action where it is feared that the challenged action will be repeated.

2016The complaining parties in this action are the [plaintiffs], and it has been established that they will not be subjected to the actions of the [defendant] again.”); Lee v. Schmidt-Wenzel, 766 F.2d 1387, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The . . . [capable of repetition exception] usually is applied to situations involving governmental action where it is feared that the - 17 - ANDERSON V.

2016North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 , 246, 92 S.Ct. 402 , 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 , 415 (1971).

2016North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 , 246, 92 S.Ct. 402 , 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 , 415 (1971).