D. Limits On Assertion Of Issues On Appeal, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs Ch.

8-D

Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs Ch. 8-D

California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs
Jon B. Eisenberg, Ellis J. Horvitz, and Justice Howard B. Wiener (Ret.)
Chapter 8. Scope And Limits Of Appellate Review
D. Limits On Assertion Of Issues On Appeal
8. [8:208] No Review of Moot Appeals: As a general rule, appellate courts will not address the merits of an
appeal that has been rendered moot by the occurrence of an event pending the appeal. Moot appeals
ordinarily will be dismissed ( 5:21 ff.). [Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
(1967) 67 C2d 536, 541, 63 CR 21, 25; Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 CA3d 1, 10, 244 CR 581,
585586; City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 147 CA3d 952, 958, 195 CR 465, 468]
a. [8:209] Cross-referevents causing mootness: Appeals are sometimes rendered moot by a settlement
of the dispute after the notice of appeal is filed. [E.g., Wax v. Infante (1983) 145 CA3d 1029, 1030, 194 CR
14, 15] For a discussion of several other events that may moot an appeal, see 5:24 ff.
b. [8:210] Exceptions: Appellate courts have discretion to decide the merits of a moot appeal where:
(1) [8:211] Recurring public interest issues: The case poses an issue of broad public interest that is
likely to recur. [In re William M. (1970) 3 C3d 16, 23, 89 CR 33, 37; Chase v. Brooks (1986) 187 CA3d
657, 661662, 232 CR 65, 68; and see Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Super.Ct. (Ford Motor Co.) (1987) 43 C3d 858,
868869, 239 CR 626, 632, fn. 8]
(2) [8:212] Recurring controversy between same parties: The same controversy between the same
parties is likely to recur. [Grier v. AlamedaContra Costa Transit Dist. (1976) 55 CA3d 325, 330, 127 CR
525, 528]
(3) [8:213] Material questions remaining: A material question (such as the right to declaratory relief)
still remains for the courts decision. [Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind,
supra, 67 C2d at 541, 63 CR at 25; Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 CA3d 200, 205, 265 CR 620,
622unreviewed judgment would have prevented litigation of key issue in subsequent action]
(b) [8:239] Public policy questions: Appellate courts are most likely to apply this exception where the
issue involves important questions of public policy or public concern. [See Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37
C3d 644, 654, 209 CR 682, 692, fn. 3 (whether rent control measure violates federal antitrust laws); County of
Orange v. Ivansco (1998) 67 CA4th 328, 331, 78 CR2d 886, 887, fn. 2 (constitutionality of child support statute
treating parents of children receiving public aid different from other parents); Marriage of Moschetta (1994) 25
CA4th 1218, 1227, 30 CR2d 893, 897898 (enforceability of surrogacy contract); Marriage of Weaver (1990)
224 CA3d 478, 488489, 273 CR 696, 702 (proper standard of proof re alleged oral transmutation of spousal
property); Marriage of Hinds (1988) 205 CA3d 1398, 1403, 253 CR 170, 172 (whether family law case
containing child support order subject to dismissal for delay in prosecution)]

2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Web

Images

More

Sign in

"capable of repetition, yet evading review"

Scholar

Articles
Case law
Federal courts
California courts
Select courts...
My library

Any time

My Citations

About 145 results (0.04 sec)

In re Yvonne W.
165 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th , 2008 - Google Scholar
... 1315-1316 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 798].) However, a reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion

to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of

continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review. ...
Cited by 220 How cited Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save

In re William M.
473 P. 2d 737, 3 Cal. 3d 16, 89 Cal. Rptr. 33 - Cal: Supreme Court, 1970 - Google Scholar
... Rptr. 670, 464 P.2d 126].) But we should not avoid the resolution of important and well litigated

controversies arising from situations which are "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

(Moore v. Ogilvie (1969) 394 US 814, 816 [23 L.Ed.2d 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. ...
Cited by 328 How cited Related articles Cite Save

Since 2016

NBC SUBSIDIARY (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court

Since 2015

980 P. 2d 337, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778, 20 Cal. 4th - Cal: Supreme , 1999 - Google Scholar
86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778 (1999). 980 P.2d 337. 20 Cal.4th 1178. NBC SUBSIDIARY (KNBC-TV), INC.,

et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Sondra Locke

et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. S056924. Supreme Court of California. ...
Cited by 281 How cited Related articles Cite Save

Since 2012
Custom range...

Sort by relevance
Sort by date

include citations

Create alert

In re Christina A.
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 310, 91 Cal. App. 4th - Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd , 2001 - Google Scholar
... 581.). An exception to this rule exists where the question to be decided is of continuing public

importance and is one "`"capable of repetition, yet evading review." `"(Press-Enterprise Co. v.

Superior Court (1986) 478 US 1, 6 [106 S.Ct. 2735, 2739, 92 L.Ed.2d 1, 9]; State of Cal. ...
Cited by 91 How cited Related articles Cite Save

People v. Cheek
24 P. 3d 1204, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 181, 25 Cal. - Cal: Supreme , 2001 - Google Scholar
108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 (2001). 25 Cal.4th 894. 24 P.3d 1204. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff

and Respondent, v. Michael Thomas CHEEK, Defendant and Appellant. No. S083305.

Supreme Court of California. June 21, 2001. 182 Steven ...

Cited by 101 How cited Related articles Cite Save

Thompson v. Department of Corrections

18 P. 3d 1198, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 25 Cal. 4th - Cal: Supreme , 2001 - Google Scholar
... Because Thompson has been executed, we could dismiss this proceeding as moot. But when,

as here, an otherwise moot case presents important issues that are "capable of repetition, yet
evading review" (Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) 219 US 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. ...
Cited by 92 How cited Related articles Cite Save

In re Esperanza C.
165 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th , 2008 - Google Scholar
... Appellants also contend the issue whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction to review

the Agency's denial of an exemption for abuse of discretion is a question of continuing

public importance, and is capable of repetition, yet evading review. ...

Cited by 184 How cited Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save

ALFREDO A. v. Superior Court

865 P. 2d 56, 6 Cal. 4th 1212, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d - Cal: Supreme , 1994 - Google Scholar
... The Court of Appeal nonetheless determined to hear and decide petitioner's systemic challenge

to the juvenile court's "official position," concluding that similar claims had proved "capable of
repetition, yet evading review" because "review usually takes longer than the ...
Cited by 72 How cited Related articles Cite Save

In re David H.
165 Cal. App. 4th 1626, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st , 2008 - Google Scholar
... In her supplemental brief on mootness, however, Mother concedes that her challenge to the

detention order is moot. She urges us to exercise our discretion to decide the issue because

it is an important issue of public interest and is capable of repetition yet evading review. ...
Cited by 157 How cited Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG