mootness doctrine in Kentucky

2025Although there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, as outlined in Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 100 (Ky. 2014), the only one that appears potentially applicable to this case is that the issue is “capable of repetition, yet 1 On March 6, 2024, McCracken Circuit Court entered a Commitment Order for Rowe to “serve bal[ance] of 1 [year] sentence.” The record shows no orders releasing Rowe prior to the expiration of his sentence.

2025Although there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, as outlined in Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 100 (Ky. 2014), the only one which appears potentially applicable is that the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review[.]” (Citation omitted.) The test for this exception has two elements: “(1) the challenged action must be too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Id.

2022For the “capable-of-repetition” exception to the mootness rule to apply, “(1) the challenged action must be too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (citing Philpot v. Patton, 837 S.W.2d 491 (Ky. 1992)).

2012And even if we were to hold that his appeal was rendered moot by Bowlin’s shock probation, we would nevertheless hold that this case falls squarely in the exception to the mootness doctrine. “[A] court will review even a moot case if the issues involved in the case are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” A.C. v. Commonwealth, 314 S.W.3d 319, 327 (Ky.App.2010) (quoting Philpot v. Patton, 837 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Ky.1992)).

2022For the “capable-of-repetition” exception to the mootness rule to apply, “(1) the challenged action must be too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (citing Philpot v. Patton, 837 S.W.2d 491 (Ky. 1992)).

2005However, a well-known exception to the mootness doctrine occurs when an issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Lexington Herald-Leader Co., Inc. v. Meigs, 660 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Ky.1983) (quoting Neb.

2012The decision whether to "apply the exception to the mootness doctrine basically involves two questions: whether (1) the “challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration and [2] there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action' again.” In re Commerce Oil Co., 847 F.2d 291 , 293 (6th Cir.1988).

2010The decision whether to apply the exception to the mootness doctrine basically involves two questions: whether (1) the ‘challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration and [2] there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again.’ In re Commerce Oil Co., 847 F.2d 291, 293 (6th Cir.1988).

2024We do not believe that such speculation establishes a reasonable expectation that Appellant would be subject to the same action again in the future as required by Hughes, supra. As such, we find no error.

2022Commonwealth v. Hughes, 873 S.W.2d 828 (Ky. 1994).

2025Child further argues that because the duration of juvenile contempt sentencings is very short, the exception applies. “‘Capable of repetition, yet evading review’ is a well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine, although one to be used sparingly.” Riley v. Gibson, 338 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Ky. 2011).

2015However, Berger contends that even though there is no longer a justiciable controversy regarding its request to withdraw its signature, other property owners may seek the same relief and, therefore, the issue is capable of repetition, yet evading review. ‘“Capable -of repetition, yet evading review is a well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine, although one to be used sparingly.” Riley v. Gibson, 338 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Ky.2011).

2017We issue this ruling pursuant to Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Meigs, 646 S.W.2d 724 (Ky. 1983) (citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498 , 31 S.Ct. 279 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911)), rather than dismiss the appeal as moot.

2017We issue this ruling pursuant to Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Meigs, 646 S.W.2d 724 (Ky. 1983) (citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498 , 31 S.Ct. 279 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911)), rather than dismiss the appeal as moot.

2017We issue this ruling pursuant to Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Meigs, 646 S.W.2d 724 (Ky. 1983) (citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498 , 31 S.Ct. 279 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911)), rather than dismiss the appeal as moot.

2003Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Meigs, Ky., 646 S.W.2d 724, 725 (1983), citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. I.C.C., 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S.Ct. 279, 283 , 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911).

2025“Our courts have long recognized that ‘[a] ‘moot case’ is one which seeks to get a judgment . . . upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.’” Beshear v. Goodwood Brewing Co., LLC, 635 S.W.3d 788 , 797 (Ky. 2021) (emphasis in original) (citing Benton v. Clay, 233 S.W. 1041, 1042 (Ky. 1921)).

2024We conclude that the appeal is moot and that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply, and therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. 4 ANALYSIS Under the mootness doctrine, an appellate court “must, of course, dismiss an appeal ‘when a change in circumstance renders that court unable to grant meaningful relief to either party.’” Lehmann v. Gibson, 482 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth, Kentucky Bd. of Nursing v. Sullivan Univ.

2024Sys., Inc., 433 S.W.3d 341, 344 (Ky. 2014)).

2024Id. (quoting Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 102 (Ky. 2014)).

2023Singleton, 428 U.S. at 108.

2022However, there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including one which allows appellate courts to address matters which “although moot, concern alleged injuries or violations which are capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Id. at 499 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022That exception applies when “(1) the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953); Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Fam.

2021Collateral consequences exception Under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, “some concrete and continuing injury . . . must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 237–38 (1968)).

2021Voluntary cessation exception Under the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine, “an appeal may proceed notwithstanding the defendant’s voluntary cessation of the challenged action, a primary concern being that a dismissal in those circumstances leaves the defendant ‘free to return to his old ways.’” Id. (citing United States v. W.T.

2017Kentucky follows the rule of statutory construction that the more specific statute controls over the more general statute." Light v. City of Louisville, 248 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Ky. 2008); see Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. 1997); City of Bowling Green v. Board of Education of Bowling Green Independent Sch<?ol District, 443 S.W.2d 24 ~ (Ky. 1969)..

2017“A court will review even a moot case if the issues involved in the case are capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Bowlin v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Ky. App. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2017Kentucky follows the rule of statutory construction that the more specific statute controls over the more general statute." Light v. City of Louisville, 248 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Ky. 2008); see Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. 1997); City of Bowling Green v. Board of Education of Bowling Green Independent Sch<?ol District, 443 S.W.2d 24 ~ (Ky. 1969)..

2016See Bolton v. Irvin, 373 S.W.3d 432, 434 (Ky.2012). .