Cited by

The issue of whether the district court erred in interpreting 609.135, subdivision 2, to effect Mitchell’s premature discharge from probation is not moot because it is still “a live controversy that can be resolved.” () (concluding there was no longer a live controversy because the harassment restraining order underlying the appeal expired and was no longer in effect).

“If, however, an event occurs while an appeal is pending that (allegedly) renders a decision on the merits by this court unnecessary or effective relief impossible, that event is—by definition — outside the record on appeal as defined by rule 110.01.” K. O., d at 364 n.1 ( (noting “the general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot”)).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “the statutory scheme tends to allow only for rate orders that operate prospectively, rather than remedially.”

d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997) (explaining that “the general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot”).

“[T]he general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.”

(considering an event occurring during the pendency of appeal in determining whether the action was moot).

12 The DNR likens these circumstances to In re Application of Minnegasco in arguing that the DNR’s implied authority can be “fairly drawn and fairly evident from the agency objectives and powers expressly given by the legislature.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.”

(noting “the general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot”).

Under the mootness doctrine, “the general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.”

3 n.4 (Minn. 2020) (holding that State forfeited its argument that the motion should be treated as a post-conviction petition by failing to raise it to the district court); (declining to reach issues not raised to the court of appeals).

The mootness doctrine “implies a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.”

It is undisputed that the HRO underlying this appeal expired in February 2022, meaning that there is no longer “a live controversy that can be resolved.”

That standard is not met if “the controversy is no longer of any practical significance.” d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997).

“[T]he general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.”

The mootness doctrine considers “whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved” or whether an event occurred making “a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible.”

brief, the City acknowledged the district court “reversed its initial decision” on attorney fees, and the City noted its “request that this [c]ourt reverse the District Court’s attorneys’ fee award is now moot.” An issue on appeal is moot and need not be reached by a reviewing court “when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary.” App. Of Minnegasco

The mootness doctrine “therefore[] implies a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of deci sion in order to determ ine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.”

The test for mootne ss is “a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of deci sion in order to determ ine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.”

“[T]he general rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.” In re Application of Minnegasco , 8 This case is also distinguishable from Glaze in that the commissi oner—rather than the attorney for the deceased party—appealed to this court.

The “g eneral rule is that when, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal sh ould be dismissed as moot.”

(citing In re Application of Minnegasco, Inc., ).

Dean v. City of Winona , (citing In re Minnegasco , ).

(declining to address issues not raised below).

An assessment of mootness requires “a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.”

An a ssessment of mootness requires “a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.”

(declining to address an issue that had not been raised before the court of appeals).

“[T]he doctrine requires ‘a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved.’” Citizens for Rule of Law, d at 175 ().

(“Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review”); (declining to reach issues not raised in the court of appeals).

(explaining that an issue on appeal is moot when an event occurs that makes an award of effective relief impossible or a decision on the merits unnecessary).