mootness doctrine in Wisconsin

2021STAT. ch. 51 orders “will, more likely than not, evade review.” See Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶80 , 349 Wis. 2d 148 , 833 N.W.2d 607 (issue regarding involuntary medication or treatment statute “likely to evade appellate review in many instances because the order appealed from will have expired before an appeal is completed”). 12 CONCLUSION ¶21 For all of these reasons, I conclude that the only issue raised in this appeal is moot and that no exception to the doctrine of mootness applies.

2021STAT. ch. 51 orders “will, more likely than not, evade review.” See Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶80 , 349 Wis. 2d 148 , 833 N.W.2d 607 (issue regarding involuntary medication or treatment statute “likely to evade appellate review in many instances because the order appealed from will have expired before an appeal is completed”). 12 CONCLUSION ¶21 For all of these reasons, I conclude that the only issue raised in this appeal is moot and that no exception to the doctrine of mootness applies.

2025That is because after the parties submitted their supplemental briefs on mootness, this court decided State v. N.K.B., 2024 WI App 63 , 414 Wis. 2d 218 , 14 N.W.3d 681, review granted (WI Feb. 12, 2025) (No. 2023AP722-CR), which resolves the issue presented here.6 ¶19 Under facts not materially distinguishable from those here, the N.K.B. court concluded that neither Sell, WIS.

2024LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 . “[T]he party who alleges that a controversy before us has become moot has the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing that we lack jurisdiction.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 1042 n.8 (1983). ¶45 In support of its mootness argument, the DNR contends that it has since invalidated the interim decision and that the interim decision is therefore “no 24 longer the operative guidance regarding COCs for properties with potential PFAS contamination.” However, despite this assertion, it is not definitively clear from the Record that the inter

2023LLC v. State Dep’t of Admin., 2009 WI 53, ¶¶25, 28, 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 (reviewing whether the circuit court properly dismissed as moot a petition for review and stating, “[m]ootness is a question of law that we review independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and the court of appeals”); Outagamie Cnty. v. C.J.A., 2022 WI App 36 , ¶¶7-8, 404 Wis. 2d 1 , 978 N.W.2d 493 (stating that “[m]oot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under ‘exceptional or compelling circumstances’” and proceeding to address the issue on ap

2023LLC v. State Dep’t of Admin., 2009 WI 53, ¶¶25, 28, 49 , 317 Wis. 2d 656 , 766 N.W.2d 559 (reviewing whether the circuit court properly dismissed as moot a petition for review and stating, “[m]ootness is a question of law that we review independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and the court of appeals”); Outagamie Cnty. v. C.J.A., 2022 WI App 36 , ¶¶7-8, 404 Wis. 2d 1 , 978 N.W.2d 493 (stating that “[m]oot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under ‘exceptional or compelling circumstances’” and proceeding to address the issue on ap

2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same).

2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same).

2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same).

2023Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶¶3-4 , 233 Wis. 2d 685 , 608 N.W.2d 425 (determining that exceptions to mootness warrant addressing issue on appeal); State v. Jeremiah C., 2003 WI App 40, ¶10 , 260 Wis. 2d 359 , 659 N.W.2d 193 (same).

2023Third, the majority opinion errs in concluding that exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in these circumstances. 1 I use the same designation for the plaintiffs-respondents as does the majority opinion. 2 I use the same designation for the defendants-appellants as does the majority opinion. 3 I refer to the test our supreme court set out at, among other places, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57, ¶3 , 403 Wis. 2d 1 , 976 N.W.2d 263 , regarding an award of attorney fees pursuant to WIS.

2023Third, the majority opinion errs in concluding that exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in these circumstances. 1 I use the same designation for the plaintiffs-respondents as does the majority opinion. 2 I use the same designation for the defendants-appellants as does the majority opinion. 3 I refer to the test our supreme court set out at, among other places, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57, ¶3 , 403 Wis. 2d 1 , 976 N.W.2d 263 , regarding an award of attorney fees pursuant to WIS.

2022Moot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under “exceptional or compelling circumstances.” City of Racine v. J-T Enters. of Am., Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 702 , 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). ¶8 The parties ask us to consider the issue on appeal because it fits into multiple exceptions to the doctrine of mootness.

2022Moot appeals are generally dismissed, but courts have discretion to decide them under “exceptional or compelling circumstances.” City of Racine v. J-T Enters. of Am., Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 691, 702 , 221 N.W.2d 869 (1974). ¶8 The parties ask us to consider the issue on appeal because it fits into multiple exceptions to the doctrine of mootness.

2020Id. at 323-25 .

2020Id. ¶23 We agreed that the case was moot insofar as it concerned the release of the requested records; we also held that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.

2020I, 366 Wis. 2d 1, ¶32 .

2015Accordingly, under the rationale set forth in Anderson's brief. .., and the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see, e.g., In re Commitment of Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 15 , 287 Wis. 2d 44 , 707 N.W.2d 495 , the State agrees that this case is as appropriate a vehicle as any to review the question presented.

2015Accordingly, under the rationale set forth in Anderson's brief. .., and the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see, e.g., In re Commitment of Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶ 15 , 287 Wis. 2d 44 , 707 N.W.2d 495 , the State agrees that this case is as appropriate a vehicle as any to review the question presented.

2004We acknowledge that there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine including the situation where the constitutionality of a statute is involved, see Doering v. Swoboda, 214 Wis. 481 , 253 N.W 657 (1934); however, we decline to now address Knickmeier's challenges to this court's rule and authority in the context of this current disciplinary proceeding against Knickmeier.

2003In Kruzicki , this court held that exceptions to the mootness rule exist "when the issues presented are of great public importance, or the question is capable and likely of repetition and yet evades appellate review because the appellate process usually cannot be completed in time to have a practical effect on the parties." Id. (internal citations omitted).

2003In Kruzicki , this court held that exceptions to the mootness rule exist "when the issues presented are of great public importance, or the question is capable and likely of repetition and yet evades appellate review because the appellate process usually cannot be completed in time to have a practical effect on the parties." Id. (internal citations omitted).

1993We accepted Badke's petition for review. [1] When reviewing a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the standards set forth under sec. 802.08(2), Stats., which provides that the judgment sought shall be rendered only if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In addition, "even if there are no disputed material facts, summary judgment is not appropriate if reasonab

1993We accepted Badke's petition for review. [1] When reviewing a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the standards set forth under sec. 802.08(2), Stats., which provides that the judgment sought shall be rendered only if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In addition, "even if there are no disputed material facts, summary judgment is not appropriate if reasonab

1986Here, the trial court decided that because neither Jones nor Galicia were currently under commitment orders, this case was analogous to In re G.S., Jr., 118 Wis. 2d 803 , 348 N.W.2d 181 (1984), and that the mootness rule applied.

1986Here, the trial court decided that because neither Jones nor Galicia were currently under commitment orders, this case was analogous to In re G.S., Jr., 118 Wis. 2d 803 , 348 N.W.2d 181 (1984), and that the mootness rule applied.