mootness doctrine in Michigan

2024See People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 37 ; 782 NW2d 187 (2010) (stating that reviewing courts will not apply the exception to the mootness doctrine “when the party seeking review of an issue on appeal has rendered the issue moot by that party’s own volitional conduct and the party could have avoided mooting the issue by seeking an appeal.”).

2024See People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 37 ; 782 NW2d 187 (2010) (stating that reviewing courts will not apply the exception to the mootness doctrine “when the party seeking review of an issue on appeal has rendered the issue moot by that party’s own volitional conduct and the party could have avoided mooting the issue by seeking an appeal.”).

2026One exception to the mootness doctrine “exists when an issue is moot, but is one of public significance and [is] likely to recur, yet may evade judicial review.” Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 315 ; 917 NW2d 685 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2026One exception to the mootness doctrine “exists when an issue is moot, but is one of public significance and [is] likely to recur, yet may evade judicial review.” Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 315 ; 917 NW2d 685 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2022See TM v MZ, 501 Mich 312, 317 ; 916 NW2d 473 (2018) (discussing the doctrine of mootness).

2022See TM v MZ, 501 Mich 312, 317 ; 916 NW2d 473 (2018) (discussing the doctrine of mootness).

2019See Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431, 439 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co v Interstate Commerce Comm, 219 US 498, 515 ; 31 S Ct 279 ; 55 L Ed 310 (1911) (“[T]his case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are ‘capable of repetition’ while ‘evading review.’ ”). 7 involves appellate rights provided by the state constitution and statutes.

2019See Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431, 439 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co v Interstate Commerce Comm, 219 US 498, 515 ; 31 S Ct 279 ; 55 L Ed 310 (1911) (“[T]his case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are ‘capable of repetition’ while ‘evading review.’ ”). 7 involves appellate rights provided by the state constitution and statutes.

2010In People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 32 (2010), we held that “the prosecution’s voluntary dismissal of the charges rendered its appeal moot . . . .” Here, in proceedings that predated Richmond, but which, needless to say, did not predate the mootness doctrine, see, e.g., Anway v Grand Rapids R Co, 211 Mich 592, 610 (1920), the prosecutor voluntarily dismissed the case after a district court suppression ruling, thereby rendering moot his appeal to the circuit court.

2010The mootness doctrine precludes adjudication of a claim that seeks a judgment that “ ‘cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.’ ” Anway, 211 Mich at 610 (citation omitted).

2022Mays did not involve a resolution silencing a councilmember for a prescribed future time period, and the plaintiffs in the case did not raise any claims under the OMA. 5 Fields cites Mead v Batchlor, 435 Mich 480, 487-488 ; 460 NW2d 493 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), for the existence of a “public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” There, our Supreme Court approvingly quoting a legal encyclopedia stating that a “court will decide a moot case or determine a moot question where this appears to be in the publi

2022Mays did not involve a resolution silencing a councilmember for a prescribed future time period, and the plaintiffs in the case did not raise any claims under the OMA. 5 Fields cites Mead v Batchlor, 435 Mich 480, 487-488 ; 460 NW2d 493 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), for the existence of a “public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” There, our Supreme Court approvingly quoting a legal encyclopedia stating that a “court will decide a moot case or determine a moot question where this appears to be in the publi

2022See B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359 ; 586 NW2d 117 (1998) (applying the doctrine of mootness when “there is no meaningful relief this Court can provide . . .”).

2022See B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359 ; 586 NW2d 117 (1998) (applying the doctrine of mootness when “there is no meaningful relief this Court can provide . . .”).

2010Street R Co of E Saginaw v Wildman, an 1885 case of this Court, is an especially apt application of this Court’s longstanding mootness doctrine.14 In Street R Co, the plaintiff railroad sought to enjoin the defendant from moving a building along its railroad tracks “to the great interruption of its business and profits, the serious inconvenience of the public, and the hindrance and delay of the United States mails which it carried. . . .”15 Shortly after the lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, but before the plaintiff appealed to this Court, the 11 MCL 324.1701 et seq. 12 Const 1963,

2010Nor are courts of equity established to decide or declare abstract questions of right for the future guidance of suitors.[44] 44 Street R Co, 58 Mich at 287 . 16 In their brief opposing Merit’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs claimed that this case fits into an exception to the mootness doctrine, that “the issue is one of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review.” 45 Not so.

2025See id. at 596.

2025Consequently, the “likely to recur yet evade judicial review” exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here because the legal issue is not “likely to recur.” See id.

2023See In re Indiana Michigan -7- Power Co, 297 Mich App 332, 340 ; 824 NW2d 246 (2012).

2022Mays did not involve a resolution silencing a councilmember for a prescribed future time period, and the plaintiffs in the case did not raise any claims under the OMA. 5 Fields cites Mead v Batchlor, 435 Mich 480, 487-488 ; 460 NW2d 493 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), for the existence of a “public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” There, our Supreme Court approvingly quoting a legal encyclopedia stating that a “court will decide a moot case or determine a moot question where this appears to be in the publi

2022Mays did not involve a resolution silencing a councilmember for a prescribed future time period, and the plaintiffs in the case did not raise any claims under the OMA. 5 Fields cites Mead v Batchlor, 435 Mich 480, 487-488 ; 460 NW2d 493 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 ; 131 S Ct 2507 ; 180 L Ed 2d 452 (2011), for the existence of a “public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.” There, our Supreme Court approvingly quoting a legal encyclopedia stating that a “court will decide a moot case or determine a moot question where this appears to be in the publi

2021Or, as another court put it, “Mootness . . . ‘is akin to saying that, although an actual case or controversy once existed, changed circumstances have intervened to destroy standing.’ . . . [S]tanding applies at the sound of the starting gun, and mootness picks up the baton from there.” Sumpter v Wayne Co, 868 F3d 473, 490 (CA 6, 2017) (citation omitted).

2020MCL 10.31(2). -19- 608 NW2d 531 (2000) (“An issue is moot if an event has occurred that renders it impossible for the court, if it should decide in favor of the party, to grant relief.”); B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359 ; 586 NW2d 117 (1998) (applying doctrine of mootness where “there is no meaningful relief this Court can provide because petitioners can assign their lottery winnings to the same parties under the amended statute”).

2020See Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass’n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (dismissing an appeal because the question regarding a proposed initiative petition’s summary became moot when its sponsors failed to file the petition by the deadline and no exception to the mootness doctrine applied, since that court typically resolves such issues in time, the initiative might not be proposed again, and the issue was not so important as to warrant discussion despite lacking a current controversy); Asher v. Carnahan, 268 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (dismissing an appeal challenging the language of a

2019See, e.g., Fed Election Comm v Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, 551 US 449 ; 127 S Ct 2652 ; 168 L Ed 2d 329 (2007) (addressing in the context of a declaratory- judgment action, the “capable of repetition yet evading review” element of the mootness doctrine after the election date passed); Hall v Secretary of Alabama, 902 F3d 1294 (CA 11, 2018) (same); Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v Klahr, 830 F3d 789 (CA 8, 2016) (same); Nat’l Org for Marriage, Inc v Walsh, 714 F3d 682 (CA 2, 2013) (same); Libertarian Party v Dardenne, 595 F3d 215 (CA 5, 2010) (same).

2019See, e.g., Fed Election Comm v Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, 551 US 449 ; 127 S Ct 2652 ; 168 L Ed 2d 329 (2007) (addressing in the context of a declaratory- judgment action, the “capable of repetition yet evading review” element of the mootness doctrine after the election date passed); Hall v Secretary of Alabama, 902 F3d 1294 (CA 11, 2018) (same); Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v Klahr, 830 F3d 789 (CA 8, 2016) (same); Nat’l Org for Marriage, Inc v Walsh, 714 F3d 682 (CA 2, 2013) (same); Libertarian Party v Dardenne, 595 F3d 215 (CA 5, 2010) (same).

2019The substantive issue presented would not have evaded judicial review had petitioner timely commenced this proceeding, which would have enabled [the] Supreme Court to hear the case before the presidential primary election and petitioner to take an expedited appeal therefrom.”); Gartner v Missouri Ethics Comm, 323 SW3d 439, 442 (Mo App, 2010) (“This case does not fall within the public interest exception because the [Missouri Ethics Commission] has failed to show that the issue in this case will likely evade review in a future controversy. . . .

2019See City of Warren v Detroit, 261 Mich App 165 , 166 n 1; 680 NW2d 57 (2004) (“We will only review a moot issue if the issue is publicly significant and is likely to recur, yet also is likely to evade review.”).

2019See City of Warren v Detroit, 261 Mich App 165 , 166 n 1; 680 NW2d 57 (2004) (“We will only review a moot issue if the issue is publicly significant and is likely to recur, yet also is likely to evade review.”).