On Point blog, page 4 of 4
Mootness: Release of Sought-After Open Record
Portage Daily Register v. Columbia Co. Sh. Dept., 2008 WI App 30
Issue/Holding:
¶8 We will generally not consider issues that are moot on appeal. See Hernandez v. Allen, 2005 WI App 247, ¶10, 288 Wis. 2d 111, 707 N.W.2d 557. However, the present appeal is not moot because our ruling will have the practical effect of determining the Register’s right to recover damages and fees under Wis.
Mootness: Revocation, Discharge from Custody
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order
For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella
Issue/Holding:
¶11. Since granting the petition for review in this case, we have determined that the issue presented is moot as to Riesch. “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.” State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher,
Mootness: Juvenile Extension Order
State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision
For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a definitive decision is necessary to guide the circuit courts;
Mootness — General
State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, affirming 2002 WI App 223, 257 Wis. 2d 650, 653 N.W.2d 116
For Lindsey A.F.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 5:
As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue which will not have any practical effect upon an existing controversy. State v. Leitner,
Mootness — Delinquency — Expired Dispositional Order
State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto
Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.
Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover,
Mootness
State ex rel. Larry E. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425
For Olson: Dennis Egre, SPD, Kenosha
Issue: Whether this case is moot, where the challenge is to the authorities’ failure to parole a prisoner at his mandatory release date, but he was released during the pendency of the case.
Holding: Although Olson’s release rendered the case moot,