Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Mootness

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶7 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. This court has held that it may decide an otherwise moot issue if it: (1) is of great public importance; (2) occurs so frequently that a definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts; (3) is likely to arise again and a decision of the court would alleviate uncertainty; or (4) will likely be repeated, but evades appellate review because the appellate review process cannot be completed or even undertaken in time to have a practical effect on the parties.¶8 We conclude that the sole issue proposed to be addressed, that is, the appropriate mechanism for changing the supervised release status of a chapter 980 committee who has been determined to be appropriate for supervised release but who remains institutionalized and awaiting placement, satisfies several exceptions to the mootness rule.

Followed, State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶¶15-16.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment