public interest exception in Nebraska

2026Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023); Rath, supra note 13 . 48 Brief for appellants at 21. - 698 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports COMMON CAUSE v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 682 We agree with other jurisdictions that questions of stand- ing generally do not fall within the public interest exception because standing is private and not public. 49 Standing refers to whether a party had, at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that would warrant a court’s exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction and remedial

2026Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023); Rath, supra note 13 . 48 Brief for appellants at 21. - 698 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports COMMON CAUSE v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 682 We agree with other jurisdictions that questions of stand- ing generally do not fall within the public interest exception because standing is private and not public. 49 Standing refers to whether a party had, at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that would warrant a court’s exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction and remedial

2018Id. [12,13] An appellate court may choose to review an oth- erwise moot case under the public interest exception if it involves a matter affecting the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.

2016An appellate court may choose to review an otherwise moot case under the public interest exception if it involves a matter affecting the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination. - 249 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports AL-AMEEN v. FRAKES Cite as 293 Neb. 248 Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John A. Colborn, Judge.

2008Green v. Lore, 263 Neb. 496 , 640 N.W.2d 673 (2002).

2008Green v. Lore, 263 Neb. 496 , 640 N.W.2d 673 (2002).

2006Green v. Lore, 263 Neb. 496 , 640 N.W.2d 673 (2002); Wilcox v. City of McCook, 262 Neb. 696 , 634 N.W.2d 486 (2001).

2006Green v. Lore, 263 Neb. 496 , 640 N.W.2d 673 (2002); Wilcox v. City of McCook, 262 Neb. 696 , 634 N.W.2d 486 (2001).

2014Id. [9] In determining whether the public interest exception should be invoked, the court considers the public or pri- vate nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public offi- cials, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the same or a similar problem.

2014For the sake of completeness, I would further note that Hron v. Donlan, 259 Neb. 259 , 609 N.W.2d 379 (2000), indicates that in addition to the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, under certain circumstances, an appellate court may also entertain the issues presented by a moot case when “other rights or liabilities may be affected by the case’s determina- tion.” The majority states that Hron v. Donlan, supra, estab- lishes that “the Nebraska Supreme Court has clearly rejected application of the other rights or liabilities exception absent proof of collateral consequences result

2019Weatherly v. Cochran, supra. In determining whether the public interest exception should be invoked, the court considers the public or private nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the same or a similar problem.

2018Interpreting the mean- ing of “appear” under § 28-311.09 demands an authoritative 11 Id. 12 Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000); Elstun v. Elstun, supra note 10 . 13 Id. - 433 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 a­ djudication for future guidance of public officials.14 However, we do not find it necessary under the public interest exception to address whether the evidence presented at the show cause hearing was sufficient to warrant the 1-year extension of the harassment protection order, which has since ex

2019An appellate court may choose to review an otherwise moot case under the public interest exception if it - 381 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports BRAMBLE v. BRAMBLE Cite as 303 Neb. 380 involves a matter affecting the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination. 10.

2019An appellate court may choose to review an otherwise moot case under the public interest exception if it involves a matter affecting the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.29 This is not such a case. [10] The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine requires consideration of the public or private nature of the 27 Reply brief for appellant at 3. 28 See Professional Firefighters Assn., supra note 14. 29 Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1 , 911 N.W.2d 598 (2018). - 393 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports BRAMBLE

2018It was plainly meant to address 14 See Hron v. Donlan, supra note 10 . 15 See Courtney v. Jimenez, 25 Neb.

2017Therefore, we found that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied and we addressed the merits of the case. - 82 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 25 Nebraska A ppellate R eports COURTNEY v. JIMENEZ Cite as 25 Neb.

2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur

2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur

2018Thus, as to him, it is no longer necessary to consider the issue of whether a court can review and countermand Nesbitt’s housing conditions at the NSP. [14-16] Though we conclude that Nesbitt’s claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are moot, an appel- late court may choose to review an otherwise moot case under the public interest exception if it involves a matter affecting 21 Id. 22 Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1999). 23 Id. at 853 . 24 Smith v. Hundley, supra note 22 .

2018Thus, as to him, it is no longer necessary to consider the issue of whether a court can review and countermand Nesbitt’s housing conditions at the NSP. [14-16] Though we conclude that Nesbitt’s claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are moot, an appel- late court may choose to review an otherwise moot case under the public interest exception if it involves a matter affecting 21 Id. 22 Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1999). 23 Id. at 853 . 24 Smith v. Hundley, supra note 22 .

2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur

2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur

2004The appellees suggest that our analysis of the public interest exception should be controlled by Stoetzel & Sons v. City of Hastings, 265 Neb. 637 , 658 N.W.2d 636 (2003); Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000); and Putnam v. Fortenberry, 256 Neb. 266 , 589 N.W.2d 838 (1999), where we concluded that the public interest exception was inapplicable.

2004The appellees suggest that our analysis of the public interest exception should be controlled by Stoetzel & Sons v. City of Hastings, 265 Neb. 637 , 658 N.W.2d 636 (2003); Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000); and Putnam v. Fortenberry, 256 Neb. 266 , 589 N.W.2d 838 (1999), where we concluded that the public interest exception was inapplicable.

2001We determined that the public interest exception applied in State v. Woods, 255 Neb. 755 , 587 N.W.2d 122 (1998).

2001We determined that the public interest exception applied in State v. Woods, 255 Neb. 755 , 587 N.W.2d 122 (1998).

1990Justice McFadden’s conclusion that the Idaho statute was unconstitutional was based on the fact that the Idaho Constitution, “[u]nlike the constitutions of some other western states ... makes an exception [to the right to appropriate] only for power purposes — not for the demands of the public interest ----” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 453 , 530 P.2d at 937 .

1990Justice McFadden’s conclusion that the Idaho statute was unconstitutional was based on the fact that the Idaho Constitution, “[u]nlike the constitutions of some other western states ... makes an exception [to the right to appropriate] only for power purposes — not for the demands of the public interest ----” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 453 , 530 P.2d at 937 .

2026Co. v. Holcomb, supra note 2 (citing Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20 , 630 S.E.2d 474 (2006)). 8 See NP Dodge Mgmt.

2026Co. v. Holcomb, supra note 2 (citing Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20 , 630 S.E.2d 474 (2006)). 8 See NP Dodge Mgmt.

2026First, as to the nature of the question presented, the appellants argue that “it’s hard to imagine an issue more public” than “whether the Secretary may share Nebraska’s unredacted voter file—which includes highly sensitive data 40 Id. at 519, 949 N.W.2d at 768 .

2026Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023); Rath, supra note 13 . 48 Brief for appellants at 21. - 698 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports COMMON CAUSE v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 682 We agree with other jurisdictions that questions of stand- ing generally do not fall within the public interest exception because standing is private and not public. 49 Standing refers to whether a party had, at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that would warrant a court’s exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction and remedial

2026Co., supra note 47; Putnam, supra note 53 . - 699 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports COMMON CAUSE v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 682 CONCLUSION Because Nebraska’s voter registration list has already been released to the DOJ, this matter is moot, and we decline to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

2025Cite as 318 Neb. 503 minor guardian, and he argues the issue is “capable of repeti- tion [so] this Court should give probate courts clear direction on [the] issue.” 56 We question Marvin’s assertion that there is confusion over the applicable legal standard for appointing minor guardians.

2025We limit our analysis accordingly. [19,20] The public interest exception to the mootness doc- trine requires the consideration of (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for the guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recurrence of the same or a similar problem. 54 As these factors demonstrate, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine exists so that authoritative judicial guidance can be provided on issues that are likely to recur but would otherwise inherently evade review. 55 [21] Marvin s

2025We limit our analysis accordingly. [19,20] The public interest exception to the mootness doc- trine requires the consideration of (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for the guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recurrence of the same or a similar problem. 54 As these factors demonstrate, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine exists so that authoritative judicial guidance can be provided on issues that are likely to recur but would otherwise inherently evade review. 55 [21] Marvin s