public interest exception in Missouri

2025We have authority to review this case because Section 455.0072 provides that “the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” Id.

2025Because the judgment does not specify on which grounds the order of protection was granted, Husband challenges all potential grounds for the judgment except sexual 2 Although the full order of protection expired during the pendency of this appeal, we apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine to hear the appeal pursuant to § 455.007, which provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See L.E.C. v. K.R.C., 674 S.W.3d 97 ,

2014“The public interest exception is very narrow and if an issue of public importance in a moot case is likely to be present in a future live controversy practically capable of review, this exception does not apply.” Jenkins v. McLeod, 231 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (quotation omitted).

2014“The public interest exception is very narrow and if an issue of public importance in a moot case is likely to be present in a future live controversy practically capable of review, this exception does not apply.” Jenkins v. McLeod, 231 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007) (quotation omitted).

2025Because the judgment does not specify on which grounds the order of protection was granted, Husband challenges all potential grounds for the judgment except sexual 2 Although the full order of protection expired during the pendency of this appeal, we apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine to hear the appeal pursuant to § 455.007, which provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See L.E.C. v. K.R.C., 674 S.W.3d 97 ,

2023Id. 7 The second of these exceptions – the public-interest exception – applies to appeals from a full order of protection that has expired. 3 Section 455.007; K.L.M., 532 S.W.3d at 709; C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017); Woodard v. Conde, 648 S.W.3d 760 , 761 n.2 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022). 4 Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to evaluate the substantive merit of Husband’s appeal, and his contention that insufficient evidence exists to support the full order of protection.

2019Nevertheless, Appellants urge us to exercise our discretion to review the case under the public interest exception.> We construe the public interest exception “very narrow[ly.]” City of Manchester v. Ryan, 180 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005).

2019We construe the public interest exception “very narrow[ly.]” City of Manchester v. Ryan, 180 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005).

2022The public interest exception is “very narrow . . . and if an issue of public importance in a moot case is likely to be present in a future live controversy practically capable of review, this exception does not apply.” Id. (citing Kinksky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194, 196 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)).

2008“The public interest exception is very narrow ... and if an issue of public importance in a moot case is likely to be present in a future live controversy practically capable of review, [this] exception does not apply.” Jenkins, 231 S.W.3d at 833 (quoting Kinsky v. Steiger, 109 S.W.3d 194,196 (Mo.App.

2015“We have ... held that a ... moot appeal seeking only personal vindication does not fall within the public interest exception.” T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 (citing Reay v. Philips, 169 S.W.3d 896, 897 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (holding that a claim that a decision constituted a blemish on appellant’s legal record did not warrant invocation of the general public interest exception)).

2009“A party’s desire to have a ‘blemish’ expunged from his or her legal record is insufficient to invoke the public interest exception.” M.W., 282 S.W.3d at 36 ; see also, e.g., Carlisle, 277 S.W.3d at 802 ; T.D.H, 258 S.W.3d at 851 ; Reay, 169 S.W.3d at 897 .

2011However, “Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support lapsed protective orders under the Adult Abuse Act are generally not of sufficient public interest to fall within the public interest exception.” M.W. v. Mabry, 282 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Mo.App.

2009“A party’s desire to have a ‘blemish’ expunged from his or her legal record is insufficient to invoke the public interest exception.” M.W., 282 S.W.3d at 36 ; see also, e.g., Carlisle, 277 S.W.3d at 802 ; T.D.H, 258 S.W.3d at 851 ; Reay, 169 S.W.3d at 897 .

2014Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001) (“[A] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.”).

2014Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001) (“[A] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.”).

2014See Pope v. Howard, 907 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Mo.App.W.D.1995) (declining to apply the public interest exception to construe a seemingly first impression issue).

2014See Pope v. Howard, 907 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (declining to apply the public interest exception to construe a seemingly first impression issue).

2014We will exercise our discretion to invoke the public interest exception “if there is some legal principle at stake not previously ruled as to which a judicial declaration can and should be made for future guidance.” Waters, 370 S.W.3d at 603 (quotation omitted).

2014We will exercise our discretion to invoke the public interest exception “if there is some legal principle at stake not previously 10 For ease of analysis, we address out of order the Ambulance District’s points relied on. 8 ruled as to which a judicial declaration can and should be made for future guidance.” Waters, 370 S.W.3d at 603 (quotation omitted).

2019Id. at 828-29 . 9 The equivalent statutory subsection applicable to gas utilities is found in section 393.1015, which states the following: A gas corporation that has implemented an ISRS [infrastructure system replacement surcharge] pursuant to the provisions of sections 393.1009 to 303.1015 shall file revised rate schedules to reset the ISRS to zero when new base rates and c harges become effective for the gas corporation following a commission order establishing customer rates in a general rate proceeding that incorporates in the utility’s base rates subject to subsections 8 and 9 of this se

2018Of course, the public interest exception to this doctrine provides that a reviewing court may consider a case presenting "an issue that (1) is of general public interest and importance, (2) will recur and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies." Missouri-American Water Company , 516 S.W.3d at 829 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2012“The public interest exception to mootness applies whenever a case presents an issue that (1) is of general public interest and importance, (2) will recur and (3) will evade appellate review in future live controversies.” Gurley v. Missouri Bd. of Private Investigator Examiners, 361 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. banc 2012).

2012For the same reason, the current case fails to meet the third prong of the public interest exception in that there is no indication that the issues presented “will evade appellate review in future live controversies.” Gurley, 361 S.W.3d at 414 .

2012T.C.T., 351 S.W.3d at 36 ; M.W., 282 S.W.3d at 36 ; Jenkins, 231 S.W.3d at 833 ; McGrath, 939 S.W.2d at 47 .

2009T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851 ; Jenkins, 231 S.W.3d at 833 ; Oplotnik v. Alexander, 105 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Mo.App.2003); McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo.App.1997); L.W., 882 S.W.2d at 291 .

2025Under this “narrow” exception, an appellate court “can exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits if . . . the issue raised is one of general public interest and importance, recurring in nature, and will otherwise evade appellate review.” D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 780-81 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023See id.

2021J.C.W. v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo. banc 2009).

2021As with Chapline’s first point, we will, nonetheless, review this point ex gratia. 6 However, even if the February 24, 2021 renewal had not occurred, we would still review the merits of Chapline’s appeal pursuant to section 455.007, which provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though t

2020Grzybinski v. 9 Dir. of Revenue, 479 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

2015Dienoff v. Galkowski 426 S.W.3d 633, 639 (Mo.App.E.D.2014).